Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Amir Ahmad v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 2623 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 3920 (4 October 2005)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).



Criminal Misc Bail Application No. 2623 of 2005

Amir Ahmad...Vs....... State of U.P.

Hon'ble Ravindra Singh, J.

Heard Sri D.R. Kushwaha and Sri Vivek Prakash Mishra learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A

This application is filed by the applicant Amir Ahmad with a prayer that he may be released on bail in case crime no. 376 of 2004, under Sections 8(c), 18/20/23 N.D.P.S. Act, P.S. Shahjad Nagar   district Rampur.

From the perusal of the record it reveals that in the present case F.I.R. was lodged by Sri Manoj Kumar Kaushik, S.O.of P.S.  Shahjad Nagar on 29.7.2004 at about 0.30 a.m. in respect of the incident, which had occurred on 28.7.2004 at about 10.30 p.m. The distance of the police station was about 2 km from the alleged place of occurrence.

According to the prosecution version the first informant and other police personnel got information through a Mukhbir Khas that two persons were sitting near a hotel at a tea stall having a huge quantity of smack and they are trying to sale the same. Thereafter, the higher officers were apprised by the first informant by giving a message through mobile phone and some persons were sent for purchasing the smack from the applicant and other co-accused. The first informant got information given on mobile phone by S.I. Vikash Saxena that the applicant and another co-accused person are having one kg smack and they have settled the deal of the same for Rs. 3 lac, one Jay Prakash , Dy. Superintendent of Police was also informed about the same and he was requested to come at the place of occurrence. The first informant tried to collect some public witness, but nobody was ready to give the evidence. Then each of them took the search of each other and reached at the place of the occurrence. S.I. Vikash Saxena was having the conversation with the applicant and other co-accused in respect of the purchase of smack. Thereafter, the applicant and other co-accused were arrested at 10.30 p.m. by the first informant and others from the tea stall. In the mean time Sri Jai Prakash, Dy. Superintendent of Police came at the place of the occurrence, who took search of the applicant and other co-accused person and from a polythene bag of applicant Amir Ahmad 1/2  kg smack was recovered . The applicant and other co-accused stated that they had bought the smack for the purpose of sale.

It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that in the present case there is no public witness to support the prosecution story and there is no compliance of Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act and without weighing the alleged recovered contraband article, its weight was mentioned in the F.I.R. The weight has been mentioned only on the basis of the self-assessment or presumption.

It is opposed by the learned A.G.A. by submitting that the arresting officer has made efforts to collect the public witness, but nobody came forward to become public witness. There is full compliance of the provision of Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act, because in this case the search of the applicant was taken by a gazetted officer and it has come in the evidence that 50 grams smack was taken from the recovered smack for the purpose of sample. It is not necessary to mention each and every thing in the F.I.R., because the F.I.R. is not and encyclopaedia of the prosecution case and the recovered smack was above the commercial quantity and there is no possibility of planting such a huge quantity of the smack.  

After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the recovery of huge quantity of the smack, submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A., it will not be proper to express any opinion on the merits of the case, the pleas taken by the learned counsel for the applicant shall be considered by the trial court when the evidence will be adduced. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled for bail at this stage.

Accordingly, the bail application is rejected.

Dated: 4.10.2005.



Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.