Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SHAILESH YADAV versus STATE OF U.P.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Shailesh Yadav v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 15017 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 14574 (28 August 2006)

 

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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court  No. 10

Crl. Misc. Bail Application no. 15017 of 2006

Shailesh Yadav . . . . . . .  . . . . . .  . . .  . . . . . . . . .  . . . .  . . . Applicant.

              Vs.

State of U.P.  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . Opp. Party.    

         

Hon'ble R.K.Rastogi,J.

         Applicant, Shailesh Yadav, has  applied for bail in this case crime no. 35 of 2005 under sections 8/20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act of police station Thoothibari district Maharajganj.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

According to the prosecution case on 9.3.2005 at about 6 P.M. infront of Jamui Kala Baseni Mill in village Jamui Kala police station Thoothibari S.H.O. Sri Rajveer Singh received an information that three persons having Charas with them, who were doing illicit business of  this article, were going

to supply Charas to some persons  and on receiving this information he along with police party arrested those persons  and upon their search from possession of Shailesh and Safi about two kilograms each of Charas were recovered and about one kilogram Charas  was recovered from possession of accused  Harendra. It is also mentioned in the recovery memo that above named persons were  given option to  give their search before a gazetted  officer  but they  refused  and said to the police  to take their search themselves.

Co-accused  Harendra was granted bail by Hon'ble Ravindra Singh,J. vide order dated 9.8.2005 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application no. 13611 of 2005 on the ground of  non-compliance of the provisions of section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. The quantity of Charas recovered from him was not weighed and it was mentioned in the recovery memo that it was about one kilogram  and so  it could be even less and could not be treated to  be commercial quantity which is one kilogram in case of of charas.

This is second bail application of the applicant. His  first bail application no.19275 of 2005 was rejected for non-prosecution on 17.4.2006.

The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that  the applicant should be bailed out as it was a case of joint recovery at one time and  it has been held by this Court  in  the bail application of Harendra  that there was no compliance of the provisions of section 50 of the NDPS Act  and bail should be granted to the applicant on this ground alone.

On the other hand,  the learned counsel for the prosecution submitted that  there has been recovery of  about twoe kilograms  Charas from the  applicant which is  a  commercial quantity and so bail should not be granted to the applicant. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted in reply that  bail was granted  to co-accused Harendra on the ground of non-compliance of the provisions of Section 5o of the NDPS Act  at the time of search, and so it becomes immaterial as to how much quantity of Charas has been recovered  as  it is a case of non-compliance of the above provisions regarding search, and  so, the  recovery itself becomes doubtful. He further submitted that  the applicant has got no criminal history  as mentioned in para 11 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application and in reply to that the prosecution has alleged that he is a criminal but it has not filed any document to show  that any other criminal  case is pending against the applicant or that he is a previous convict.

The Sub Inspector who has forwarded the above report  has also stated in para 3 of the forwarding report that there was no  record  of criminal history of the  applicant at the police station though he was of criminal nature. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that  in the absence of any criminal record, the above remark of the Sub Inspector  is based on conjectures only. He further submitted that  the applicant has not  got any  criminal history and so it cannot be said that after release  on bail he would involve himself in any   such crime,and so  bail should be granted to him.

With  expressing any opinion  on the merits of the case but taking into consideration the facts and circumstances pointed out above, I am of the view that the applicant deserves to be bailed out.

Let the applicant named above be released on bail in the aforesaid case on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

Dated:28.8.2006

RPP.


Copyright

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

Advertisement

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 |

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