This second bail application challenging false implication under the NDPS Act was dismissed. The court accepted that the seized substance was Alprazolam with a quantity five times higher than the commercial limit, ruling that such a quantity precludes bail under existing High Court tradition.
The second bail application filed by the applicant is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 53
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 50258 of 2019
Applicant :- Jogendra Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sonu Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.
Sri S.P. Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant-petitioner Jogendra Singh. Sri Manish Goel, learned Addl. Advocate General assisted by Sri Janardan Prakash, AGA for the State.
Counsel for the applicant has filed this second bail application on behalf of the applicant Jogendra Singh, who is in Jail since 17.7.2019 on the ground that the case bearing Crime No. 468 of 2019 under Section 21/22 of the N.D.P.S Act, 1985 has been registered against the applicant at police station Delhi Gate, district Aligarh is false and the applicant has been falsely implicated.
It is the case of the applicant's counsel that applicant has been falsely implicated and, in fact, narcotic substance i.e. 500 grams Diazepam found from the possession of the applicant seems to be false as commercial quantity is 500 grams and the provisions contained Under Section 42 and 50 were not complied with.
It is submitted that there is tradition of this High Court to generally enlarge the accused on bail even if commercial quantity is seized from such accused and only as exception when quantity is far in excess of commercial quantity, then bail may be denied as per discretion of the Court. However, on the last date it had come on record that chemical analysis report was not available on record and was not filed alongwith the charge sheet. However, today Sri Manish Goel, Addl. Advocate General has produced the chemical analysis report dated 12.12.2019 obtained from the Forensic Lab, UP Agra; which makes it clear that the seized item was found to be 'Alprazolam'. Learned Addl. Advocate General submits that in the notification specifying small quantity and commercial quantity, which is part of the table with the NDPS Act bearing Notification No. 527/ (E) dated 16.7.1996 'Alprazolam' is mentioned at serial no. 178. Its chemical composition is 8- chloro-1-methyl-6-phenyl [4] -H-s-triazolo [14, 3-a] [1,4] benzodiazepine.
It is submitted that small quantity is 5 gram and commercial quantity is 100 gram as against Diazepam for which 20 gram is non commercial quantity is 500 gram. Therefore, from the argument put forth by Sri Sharma, it is evident that substance which has been seized from the possession of the applicant is Alprazolam and the quantity seized is 5 times higher than the commercial quantity. It is apparent, as per tradition of this High Court drug seized which is much higher than the commercial quantity, then no bail can be granted. Therefore, second bail application is dismissed.
Order Date :- 14.2.2020 S.K.S.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted when the seized quantity of Alprazolam exceeds five times the commercial quantity defined in the NDPS Act notification.
Whether the subsequent filing of the chemical analysis report confirming the substance as Alprazolam (rather than Diazepam) affects the grant of relief.
Whether the tradition of this High Court precludes bail in cases involving quantities far in excess of commercial quantity.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Jogendra Singh
Vivek Agarwal
S.K.S.
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
