Allowed

Bablu Kumar Sonkar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC18 Nov 2022BAIL/17294/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an NDPS bail application, the High Court allowed the applicant's release due to prima facie non-compliance with Section 52-A of the NDPS Act regarding inventory and samples. The court found potential issues with the genuineness of the prosecution case.

What did the court decide?

Grant of bail on personal bond and two sureties subject to standard conditions including not tampering with evidence or witnesses.

Bablu Kumar Sonkar Vs State of U.P. — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17294 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Bablu Kumar Sonkar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Malay Prasad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Malay Prasad and Ms. Tanya Makkar, the learned Counsel for the applicant, Sri Arun Kumar Pandey, the learned Additional Government Advocate and perused the record.

¶6

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 739 of 2021, under Sections 8/22 of The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station Roza, District Shahjahanpur during pendency of the trial in the Court below.

¶7

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged by the Sub Inspector of Police alleging that on the basis of an information received from a Mukhbir, three persons were apprehended and different quantities of Charas in bags being carried by them were recovered. Regarding the applicant, it is alleged that 7 packets were kept in a bag being carried by the applicant weighing in all 4.5 Kgs. The packets recovered from each of the accused persons were opened and samples weighing 500 gms. were prepared per person.

¶8

In the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, it has been stated that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case and that he has no criminal history. The applicant is languishing in jail since 14.12.2021.

¶9

The State has filed a counter affidavit annexing therewith a copy of the test report submitted by the Forensic Science Laboratory, which has reported that the substance was found to be Charas.

¶10

The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that even as per the narration contained in the F.I.R. itself, no inventory has been prepared and samples have not been drawn in the presence of the Magistrate. He has further submitted that separate samples have not been drawn from each of the packets recovered and even the weights of the individual packet is not

¶11

mentioned in the F.I.R.

¶12

Per contra, Sri Arun Kumar Pandey, the learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail and he has submitted that the search has been carried out in the presence of a Circle Officer, who is a Gazetted Officer, and huge quantity of Charas has been recovered from 3 accused persons in a single recovery, and therefore, the bail application is liable to be rejected.

¶13

I have considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, what prima facie appears from the materials available before the Court at this stage is that three persons were apprehended by the police on the basis of the information received from a Mukhbir, 7 packets were recovered from the applicant, 6 packets were recovered from the co-accused Ram Kumar and 9 packets were recovered from another co-accused Mohd Haneef. The F.I.R. does not mention the weight of individual packets recovered by the police and it is collectively mentioned that the weight of the substance recovered from the applicant was 4.5 Kgs. The quantity recovered from co-accused Mohd Haneef was 8 Kgs and the substance recovered from other co-accused Ram Kumar was 5 Kgs. Samples have been drawn accused wise and not packets wise and there is nothing on record to indicate that an inventory has been prepared and samples have been drawn in duplicate in presence of Magistrate. The aforesaid facts prima facie indicate a non compliance of the mandatory provisions of Section 52-A of the N.D.P.S. Act as well as the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 of 1989 issued by the Central Government. The aforesaid facts are sufficient to gave rise a reasonable apprehension against the genuineness of the prosecution case, without recording any findings on the merits of the case, for the limited purpose of the enlargement of the applicant on bail.

¶14

Moreover keeping in view of the fact that applicant has no criminal history, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail and the instant bail application is allowed .

¶15

Let the applicant Bablu Kumar Sonkar be released on bail in Case Crime No. 739 of 2021, under Sections 8/22 of The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station Roza, District Shahjahanpuron furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below, subject to the following conditions:-

¶16

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶17

(ii) The applicant will not influence any witness.

¶18

(iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶19

(iv) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶20

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move an application before this Court seeking cancellation of the bail.

¶21

Order Date :- 18.11.2022 Sumaira

¶22

Digitally signed by SUMAIRA AQUIL Date: 2022.11.21 13:07:30 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Bablu Kumar Sonkar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bablu Kumar Sonkar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Akhilesh Vs State of U.P.

Amit Bansal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mohit Agarwal Vs State of U.P.

Mahesh Chandra Verma Vs State of U.P.

Urmila Devi Vs State of U.P.

Karam Chand @ Pinto Vs State of U.P.