Safi vs State of U.P.

Ravindra Singh, J.—Heard Shri Arvind Mishra and Sri Ajai Kumar Srivastava learned Counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A.

This application is filed by the applicant Safi with a prayer that he may be released on bail in Case Crime No. 36 of 2005, u/s 8/20 of the N.D.P.S. Act, P.S. Thuthibari district Mahrajganj.

From the perusal of the record, it reveals that in the present case the F.I.R. was lodged by Sri Raj Veer Singh, S.H.O. of P.S. Thuthibari on 9.3.2005 at 7.05 p.m. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 9.3.2005 at 6.00 p.m.

According to prosecution version from the possession of the applicant 2 kg. charas was recovered. At the time of the arrest of the applicant two other co-accused persons also arrested and from the possession of co-accused Shailesh 2 kg. charas and from the possession of the co-accused Harendra one kg charas was also recovered. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the applicant that in the present case there is no independent witness to support the prosecution story and there is no compliance of provision of Sections 50 and 42 of the N.D.P.S. Act and the applicant is not having any criminal antecedents.

It is opposed by the learned A.G.A. by submitting that in the present case the applicant was arrested and his search was made by the first informant who is Gazetted Officer. Therefore, there is no requirement to apprise the applicant in respect of his right of giving the search before a Gazetted Officer as provided by the Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act. It is further submitted that a huge quantity of the charas was recovered from the possession of the applicant and other co-accused person and the efforts were made by the first informant to collect the public witness, but due to fear of the smugglers nobody was agreed to become witness. It is further contended that the report of Chemical Examiner has been received. According to report, the recovered contraband article was charas. The same report was in respect of other co-accused persons also. It is further submitted that there was no enmity of the first informant with the applicant and other co-accused persons and there was no reason of false implication of the applicant by planting such a huge quantity of charas, so the applicant does not deserve for bail.

After considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made by the learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. the applicant is not entitled for bail at this stage.

Accordingly, the bail application is rejected.