Dismissed

Riyaz Alias Khurchali v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Civil Sectt Lko.

Allahabad HC5 Aug 2024/2919/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court rejected a bail application under the NDPS Act. The recovery of narcotic substances exceeded commercial quantities, and the applicant had prior criminal history in NDPS cases. Despite an argument regarding Section 50 compliance and the nature of recovery, the court held the test under Section 37 was satisfied, leading to the rejection.

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected; expedited trial directed; remaining witnesses to be produced without delays.

Riyaz Alias Khurchali Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home… — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:53586

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2919 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Riyaz Alias Khurchali Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Civil Sectt Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Dhananjai Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

Counter Affidavit filed in court is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the record.

¶8

The accused-applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.809 of 2022 under section 8/20 NDPS Act, P.S. Khairighat, District Bahraich.

¶9

The FIR in question was lodged alleging that on the basis of the information received, a checking was carried out in which the applicant was sitting with some other person, his son and from the said apprehended person, Charas weighing around two kilogram was recovered, out of which hundred gram was drawn as a sample and based upon the said recovery from the vehicle, in which the applicant and his son were sitting, the applicant was apprehended and is in custody since 09.12.2022.

¶10

It is argued by the counsel for the applicant that the mandate of section 50 of the NDPS Act was not followed as such, the applicant should be enlarged on bail. He further argues that during the trial, the deposition of four witnesses have been recorded and one of the witness has specifically deposed that option of exercising the mandate as is required under section 50 of the NDPS Act was not given, as such, the applicant may be enlarged on bail. With regard to the criminal antecedents, as pointed out by the learned AGA which includes as many as 34 cases, four of which under the NDPS Act, the counsel for the applicant states that the applicant was enlarged on bail in one of the cases and in three other cases, he has been acquitted vide judgements and the questionnaire to demonstrate that he has been acquitted are on record. He thus, argues that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶11

Learned AGA opposes the bail application by arguing that as the recovery was far above the commercial quantify prescribed, coupled with the fact that the applicant has the criminal history of the offence under the NDPS Act, the bail application

¶12

deserves to be rejected keeping in view the mandate of section 37 of the NDPS Act.

¶13

Considering the submissions made at the bar, prima-facie as the recovery is more than the commercial quantity, the test of section 37 has to be satisfied. In terms of the FIR, allegedly on the basis of a search carried out from the car in which the applicant was present along with his son, two kilograms of charas were recovered, out of which hundred gram was drawn as a sample and has sent for verification. As the applicant was sitting in the car along with the son, prima-facie keeping in view the mandate of NDPS Act and presumption of guilt, there was a conscious possession against both the said persons who were sitting in the car. The mandate of section 50 of the NDPS Act, as argued by the counsel for the applicant, is not required to be observed in view of the law as explained in the case of Ranjan Kumar Chadha vs. State of Himanchal Pradesh Criminal Appeal No.2239-2240 of 2011 decided on 06.10.2023 as the recovery was not affected from the person. From the criminal history of the applicant, which includes four cases under the NDPS Act, the applicant was acquitted in one of the cases only as the prosecution could not establish the recovery and there were contradictions in the statements and in the said case also, the applicant was alleged to be carrying charas weighing about two kilograms.

¶14

Considering the criminal history of the applicant including the bail order dated 08.02.2023 in favour of the applicant, prima-facie there is no material to enable this court to form a view that the applicant if enlarged on bail would not indulged in similar activity, as such, considering these facts, the bail application deserves to be rejected.

¶15

Accordingly, the bail application is rejected.

¶16

The trial court is directed to ensure the remaining witnesses are examined with all expedition without any unnecessary adjournments to any of the parties.

¶17

The Superintendent of Police, District Bahraich is also directed to ensure that the remaining formal witnesses are produced for their deposition without taking any adjournments. The trial court shall endevour to conclude the trial with all expedition preferably within a period of six months.

¶18

Order Date :- 5.8.2024 VNP/-

¶19

Digitally signed by :- VISHVANATH PRASAD SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Riyaz Alias Khurchali v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Civil Sectt Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Riyaz Alias Khurchali v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Civil Sectt Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Om Prakash Alias Prakash Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home

Pintu Gautam Vs State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. Home and 4 Others

Mahendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Civil Secrett. Lko. and 3 Others

Anjani Kumar @ Nankau Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

Manish Mandal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Bhaiyya Lal Yadav Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Others