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


Sanjay v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 11245 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 4072 (5 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 Applicaion No. 11245 of 2005

Sanjay........ Vs............ State of U.P.

Hon'ble Ravindra Singh,J.

Heard Sri N.I. Jafri, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A.

This application is filed by the applicant Sanjay  with the prayer that he may be released on bail in Case Crime no. No. 186 of 2004 ( Case No. 6 of 2005) Under Sections 18/20 of the N.D.P.S. Act  P.S. Railway Road  district Meerut.

From the perusal of the record it  reveals that in the present case the F.I.R. was lodged by Sri Ashok Kumar Sisodiya, Station Officer, Railway Road Meerut on 23.10.2004 at 7.50 P.M. in respect of the  incident which had occurred on 23.10.2004 at 18.10 P.M.

According to the prosecution version at the time of the arrest and search made by Sri Ram Suresh Yadav, Circle Officer, Railway Road, the applicant was having a polythene bag from where 1 k.g. and  100 grams Charas was recovered. From that recovery of Charas a sample of 100 grams Charas was taken which was  sealed on the spot.

It is contended  by the learned counsel for the applicant in the present case there was no compliance of section 50 of the N.D.P.S.Act and there was no independent witness to support the prosecution story and the applicant is not involved in any other case of  N.D.P.S.  Act and the mother of the applicant has sent telegram to the higher authorities on 21.10.2004 at 4.45 P.M.  mentioning therein that her son was arrested by the police on 21.10.2004 at about 8 A.M. there was  an apprehension of his false implication in a criminal case. The applicant was illegally detained at the police station for a period of more than two days where he was falsely implicated in this case on 23.10.2004 by  planting  alleged recovery of Charas.  

It is opposed by the learned A.G.A. by submitting that there is  strict compliance of section  50 of the N.D.P.S. Act  because the applicant was apprised  about his right of giving search  before any  Magistrate  or a Gazetted Officer as provided by section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act. Thereafter, the applicant  stated that his search may be taken by any Gazetted Officer then on  a telephonic message Circle Officer was called and in his presence search was taken and  recovery of Charas was made. The recovered Charas was 1 k.g. and 100 grams. It is above the commercial quantity and  effort was made to collect the witnesses but nobody  could be available. The applicant is  a criminal having criminal  history of five other cases.

It is further submitted that so far as the telegram is concerned it has no value at this stage because such telegram are sent by the criminals in peshbandi. A huge quantity of Charas was recovered from the possession of the applicant, which cannot be planted and there is no reason of false implication of the applicant, therefore  the applicant is not entitled for bail.

In the present case it is contended that the applicant was not arrested on 23.10.2004 as shown by the police because he was arrested on 21.10.2004. In respect of his arrest, one telegram was sent to the Chairman  of Human Rights Commission by his mother on 21.10.2004 at 4.45 P.M.; the  time of sending the telegram is prior to the time of arrest of the applicant shown by the police which belies the alleged arrest  and recovery. It is a plea of defence, it may be  considered by the trial court when evidence in respect of this plea the evidence is   adduced in the court, prior that stage it is not proper to consider this ''plea' because such telegram may be sent in peshbandi also for example a person/who is committing the offence, knows it very well, that at any time he/she may be arrested.  So to challenge such arrest he/she  sends the  fake telegram to higher authorities daily and in case of actual arrest any of such  telegram may be used for disbelieving such arrest/ recovery,  false telegrams are usually sent. Therefore  such telegrams may not be considered to draw the conclusion in respect of the actual arrest of the accused, at pretrial stage.  

Considering the facts and circumstance of the case and the submission 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.  

Accordingly this bail application is rejected.

Dt.    5.10.2005



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.