Court No. - 69
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5746 of 2018 Applicant :- Vijay Kumar Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Akhilesh Kumar Singh,Chandra Kumar Rai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sanjay Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.
Rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant is taken on retrod.
Heard Sri C.K.Rai, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ashish Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite party and Sri Abhinav Prasad, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the record.
Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive and he has committed no offence.It has been next contended that 710 gms. contraband article i..e. 710 grm. "Heroin" is said to have been recovered from the possession of the applicant. In fact nothing has been recovered from his possession. It is further contended that the applicant is an ex- army man and has served the country to his best ability and honestly. There is no independent or public witness of the alleged recovery. He further submits that there is no compliance of mandatory provisions of Section 50 of N.D.P.S. Act, hence the recovery is bad in the eyes of law. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused has also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required. The applicant has no other reported criminal antecedent and he is in jail since 4.6.2017.
Learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.
Sri Ashish Pandey, learned counsel for Union of India through N.C.B., Lucknow argued that the recovered quantity of charas is much more than the prescribed commercial quantity. The information received by the N.C.B. was reduced to writing in the relevant register. There is no legal requirement that the search be made at the place of occurrence and recovery memo be also prepared over there. 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-applicant 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. All the mandatory provisions provided under the N.D.P.S. Act have been followed in this case. 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.
The trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the present case and conclude the same, preferably within a period of further six months from the date of production of certified copy of the order, if there is no legal impediment.
Order Date :- 22.1.2019 IA