Court No. - 62
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 42961 of 2018 Applicant :- Rakesh Singh Opposite Party :- Union Of India Through Zonal Director Counsel for Applicant :- Ajai Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- Sanjay Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.
The present bail application has been moved on behalf of the accused- applicant Rakesh Singh involved in case crime no.5 of 2017 under sections 8/21/27-A/29 of N.D.P.S. Act, P.S. Narcotics Central Bureau, Lucknow, District Lucknow.
Heard Sri Ajai Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ashish Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the Union of India through N.C.B., Lucknow and learned AGA for the State and also perused the record.
Contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that applicant is innocent and has not committed any offence. Nothing has been recovered from the possession of the applicant nor there is any evidence against him to connect him with the present offence. Referring to the recovery memo as well as the complaint filed in the matter and also the statement of the applicant as well as co-accused recorded under section 67 of the N.D.P.S. Act, it is further contended that no such statement has been given by the applicant before the authority concerned. Since he was in the custody, therefore, after preparing the documents, signature of applicant was obtained on the statement.The applicant is in jail since 22.2.2018.
In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Versus Bal Mukund, 2009 Law Suit(SC) 522.
Sri Ashish Pandey, learned counsel for Union of India through N.C.B., Lucknow argued that information received by the N.C.B. was reduced to writing in the relevant register. Thereafter, the team proceeded and chased the applicant and other accused person and as soon as the Bus reached at the place of occurrence and the applicant tried to deliver/hand over the contraband to co-accused, he was intercepted and arrested. There is no legal requirement that the search be made at the place of occurrence and recovery memo be also prepared over there. Referring to the counter affidavit filed in the matter, it is further argued that there is evidence of call details of all the four accused persons, who were engaged in commission of the present offence. Confessional statement recorded under section 67 of the N.D.P.S. Act can be read in evidence and the same was not retracted at the first instance at the time of first remand. Hence, submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant are not acceptable. Referring to the statement of the accused-applicants recorded under section 67 of the N.D.P.S. Act, it is further submitted that present applicant was also indulged in trafficking of the contraband. he has admitted that advance payment for delivery of contraband had also been given. All the mandatory provisions provided under the N.D.P.S. Act have been followed in this case. It is immaterial that whether the said contraband had been recovered from the possession of only one accused or from all. At this stage, learned counsel appearing for the N.C.B. has also placed reliance on the following decisions :
1. Union of India Versus Rattan Malik @ Habul, 2009 Law Suit(SC) 52
2. Virendra Kumar Versus Union of India, 2005 (51) ACC 618
3. Anil Kumar Singh @ Pintu Singh Versus Union of India Through Intelligence Officer, Ncb, Lucknow (Order dated 23.8.2016 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.28717 of 2016.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the parties, going through the record as well as case laws cited by the parties, keeping in view the evidence of call details of the applicant and also the confessional statement made by the applicant, at this stage, the Court is of the view that no ground is made out to enlarge the applicant on bail.
The bail application of the accused-applicant is accordingly rejected.
Order Date :- 18.12.2018 IA