CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Moti Lal Sahu vs State of U.P.

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 4 October 2005 · Citation: (2006) 1 ACR 66

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ravindra Singh, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS) — Section 18, 20, 50
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal M. Bail Application No. 10082 of 2005
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 365 words

Ravindra Singh, J.—Heard Sri R. M. Mishra learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A.

2.

This application is filed by the applicant Moti Lal Sahu with a prayer that he may be released on bail in Case Crime No. 352 of 2002, u/s 18/20, N.D.P.S. Act, P.S. Rail Bazar, district Kanpur Nagar.

3.

From the perusal of the record it reveals that in the present case the F.I.R. was lodged by Sri Umesh Chandra Srivastava Station Officer of P.S. Rail Bazar, district Kanpur Nagar on 12.12.2002 at 1.45 p.m. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 12.12.2002 at 11.35 a.m. The distance of the police station was about 1-1/2 km. from the alleged place of the occurrence.

4.

According to prosecution version one Maruti car was intercepted by the police. The applicant and one other co-accused Deepak alias Deepu Shivharey were boarding on that Maruti car and from that car 8 bags were recovered. From those bags 125 kg. ganja was recovered.

5.

It is contended by the learned Counsel for the applicant that there is no compliance of the provisions of Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act and there is no independent witness to support the recovery. Co-accused Deepak alias Deepu Shivharey has been released on bail by this Court and the applicant is not involved in any case of the N.D.P.S. Act.

6.

It is opposed by the learned A.G.A. by submitting that in the present case Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act will not be applicable, because the recovery was made from a Maruti car. The bail of the co-accused has been granted on the ground that he was driver of the alleged Maruti car. The case of the applicant is distinguishable from the case of co-accused, because huge quantity of ganja was recovered. Such quantity may not be planted and there is no ground for false implication.

7.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made by the learned Counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case the applicant is not entitled for bail at this stage.

8.

Accordingly, the bail application is rejected.