High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Shailesh Yadav v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 15017 of 2006  RD-AH 14574 (28 August 2006)
Court No. 10
Crl. Misc. Bail Application no. 15017 of 2006
Shailesh Yadav . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Applicant.
State of U.P. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . Opp. Party.
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.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.