Allowed

Mukesh Singh @ Dabbu Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC2 Jan 2024/4455/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Justice Pankaj Bhatia allowed a bail application under NDPS Act. The court found prima facie violations of Section 50 regarding search procedure and delays in FSL analysis. Despite recovered narcotics exceeding commercial quantity, the applicant's lack of criminal antecedents warranted bail.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail with personal bond and two sureties under Section 8/21 NDPS Act upon fulfilling conditions to attend hearings and not tamper with evidence.

Mukesh Singh @ Dabbu Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy… — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:239

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4455 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Mukesh Singh @ Dabbu Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Ravindra Shukla,Ajai Kumar,Vivek Kumar Rai

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶7

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

¶8

The FIR in question was lodged alleging that on the basis of checking and subsequent search carried out from the motorcycle being driven by the applicant, 500 gram smack kept in a plastic bag in the said motor-cycle was recovered. The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that there was clear non compliance of the mandate of Section 50 of NDPS Act. He further states argues that the even if the appended offended goods were recovered from the alleged possession of the applicant, it was incumbent upon the respondents to have got the search done in the presence of independent witnesses which has not been done. He further argues that the safeguards as laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Ranjan Kumar Chadha vs. State of Himachal Pradesh; 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1262 have also not been followed.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has also drawn my attention to the counter affidavit filed by the State stating that the samples which were recovered were forwarded to the FSL for analysis on 14.02.2023 whereas the alleged recovery was effected on 25.01.2023 without there being any explanation for the inordinate delay. It is stated that in terms of the Circular No.1/88 and 1/89, it is incumbent upon the officer that the samples be sent with expedition, preferably within a period of 72 hours.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has further drawn my attention that even despite sufficient time having elapsed, the FSL report has not come and the applicant continues to be in detention since 25.01.2023 without having any criminal antecedents.

¶11

Learned AGA, on the other hand, argues that as the recovery is more than the commercial quantity, the conditions of Section 37 of NDPS Act have to be satisfied.

¶12

In the light of the said arguments, prima facie the allegations are levelled against the applicant based upon the recovery effected from the bag allegedly being carried on a motor-cycle and having 500 gram smack. The recovery memo itself reports that the applicant had given up his right of being searched in the presence of a magistrate or a gazetted officer and thus he waved his right under Section 50 of the NDPS Act. The said recovery was not conducted in the presence of any independent witness. The manner in which the samples have been sent for analysis after a huge delay of about 19 days prima facie violates the guidlines issued through the Circulars No.1/88 and 1/89.

¶13

Thus, in view of the interpretation of Section 37 of NDPS Act by the Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain vs. State (NCT of Delhi); 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 260 , prima facie a view can be formed that the accused may not be guilty on the basis of the recovery and the sampling process as recorded above. As the applicant has no criminal antecedent, the second of the twin conditions specified under Section 37 of the NDPS Act also stands satisfied in view of the law as laid down in the case of Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma vs. State of Maharashtra and Another; (2005) 5 SCC 294 and as such for reasons recorded above, the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶14

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶15

Let the applicant Mukesh Singh @ Dabbu Singh be released on bail in FIR/Case Crime No.029 of 2023, under Section 8/21 N.D.P.S. Act, registered at Police Station Jais, District Amethi on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of court concerned with the following conditions:

¶16

(a) The applicant shall execute a bond to undertake to attend the hearings;

¶17

(b) The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused or suspected of the commission; and

¶18

(c) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any 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 or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶19

Order Date :- 2.1.2024 Manoj K.

¶20

Digitally signed by :- MANOJ KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mukesh Singh @ Dabbu Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh Singh @ Dabbu Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Home 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

Prem Sagar Vishwakarma Vs Presiding Officer,Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court,Lko. and 2 Others

Shyam Rang and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Panchayet Raj, Govt. Civil Sectt. Lko. and 4 Others

M/S A.S. Constructions,Lakhimpur Kheri Thru. Proprietor Daravari Vs Union of India, Thru. Secy. Ministry of Finance, New Delhi and 3 Others

Manvendra Pal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home, Lko.

Vinod Pal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko.

Ranu Vs State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. Home