Allowed

Puran Lal v. Union of India Thru. N.C.B Lko

Allahabad HC20 Mar 2024BAIL/3244/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application allowed for driver accused in NDPS case. Court distinguished applicant's role from co-accused arrested with 100 kg ganja, noting no contraband recovery from his vehicle and weak evidence against him. Twin conditions under Section 37 satisfied due to no criminal antecedents and detention for over a year.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on furnishing personal bond with two sureties subject to conditions.

Puran Lal vs Union of India Thru. N.C.B Lko — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:34384

¶2

Court No. - 16

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3244 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Puran Lal Opposite Party :- Union Of India Thru. N.C.B Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Mohammad Azam Siddiqui,Anam Ansari

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- Akhilesh Kumar Awasthi

¶6

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶7

Counter affidavit filed on behalf of the N.C.B. is taken on record.

¶8

Heard Shri Mohammad Azam Siddiqui learned counsel for the accused-applicant as well as Shri Akhilesh Kumar Awasthi, learned counsel representing N.C.B. and perused the record.

¶9

This bail application has been moved on behalf of the accused-applicant/ Puran Lal for grant of bail, in N.C.B. Crime No. 37 of 2021, under Section 8(C)/20/25/29 N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station N.C.B., District Lucknow, during pendency of trial.

¶10

Learned counsel for accused-applicant while drawing the attention of this Court towards the copy of complaint filed by the N.C.B. before the Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Act, Lucknow of date 14.03.2022 as well as the supplementary complaint of date 13.09.2022, vehemently submits that the case of the N.C.B. so far as the applicant and other co-accused persons are concerned is to the tune that on the basis of a secret information 100 kg. of 'ganja' has been seized from vehicle Truck No. U.P.-25 CT5086 from the cabin and toolbox of the vehicle, which at the relevant point of time was manned by the two accused persons namely Bhanu Pratap and Noor Ahmad. The instant applicant Puran Lal is the driver of vehicle Registered No. U.P. 25 CT5455, who is not connected with the crime.

¶11

It is vehemently submitted that statement of the co-accused persons, who were arrested along with contraband was recorded by the officers of the N.C.B. under Section 67 of the N.D.P.S. Act and in their statement it is surfaced that the contraband was given to them by some unknown person and they have not taken the name of instant applicant. However, in their statement a stray mentioning has been made by them that the owner of the

¶12

vehicle had directed them to make a phone call when they will reach Bareily and thereafter it would be told to them as to where the consignment is to be delivered.

¶13

It is further submitted that text and tenor of the confessional statement of the two accused persons would sufficiently demonstrate that the owner and driver of another vehicle (applicant) was not involved at all in purchasing or transportation of the contraband (ganja) and, thus, the statement of the two co-accused persons pertaining to the fact that the instant applicant was involved in transportation of 'ganja' is not corroborated by any factual matrix or evidence collected by the N.C.B.

¶14

It is further submitted that the statement of the applicant was also recorded by the officers of the N.C.B. under Section 67 of the N.D.P.S. Act and he has fairly stated all the facts which have also been found corroborated by the investigation done by the Narcotics Control Bureau. However, without there being any sufficient evidence or material, the complaint has been filed against the instant applicant also, even when nothing has been recovered from his truck.

¶15

It is also submitted that keeping in view the judgment of the Constitutional Bench rendered in 'Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in MANU/SC/0797/2020: (2021) 4 SCC1 , the nature of statement recorded under Section 67 of the N.D.P.S. Act is akin to the statement recorded by the investigating officer under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. and on the basis of the same conviction could not be procured before the Special Court and the evidence/material, which has been tendered in support of the allegations against the applicant is so weak that by any stretch of imagination the N.C.B. may not secure conviction of the applicant.

¶16

It is next submitted that applicant is languishing in jail in this case since 18.12.2021 and still only two witnesss of the N.C.B. has been testified before the Special Court. Applicant is not having any criminal antecedents and there is no likelihood that the accused-applicant after release on bail may flee from the process of law or will misuse the liberty of bail.

¶17

Shri Akhilesh Kumar Awasthi, learned counsel representing N.C.B. vehemently opposes the prayer of bail of the applicant on the ground that the matter pertains to the recovery of the 100 kg. of 'ganja', which is commercial quantity and the involvement of the applicant has surfaced as the person who had asked the actual executors of the crime to transport the contraband at some place at Bareily and, thus, the twin

¶18

conditions as enumerated under Section 37(1)(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act would attract against the instant applicant.

¶19

It is also submitted that as the contraband was being transported in the knowledge of the applicant an he was in connivance with other accused persons and the matter pertains to the commercial quantity and bail of one of the co-accused Bhanu Pratap, who was arrested with the contraband has been rejected by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 30.08.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 9702 of 2022, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.

¶20

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is evident that the two co-accused persons namely Bhanu Pratap and Noor Ahmad are shown to have been arrested with 100 kg. of 'ganja' recovered from the vehicle wherein they were travelling as drivers. After investigation the Narcotic Control Bureau has filed complaint only against three persons namely Bhanu Pratap, Noor Ahmad and Pooran Lal (applicant). The statement of the two co-accused persons, who have been found with the contraband would sufficiently demonstrate that they have admitted in categorical terms to have transported the contraband consciously and a stray statement has been given by them that they were directed by the owner of the vehicle to make a phone call when they would reach Barielly. The statement given by these two co-accused persons so far as the instant applicant is concerned is not specific and direct. This Court is deliberately avoiding appreciating the statement of these co-accused persons recorded under Section 67 of the N.D.P.S. Act, keeping in view the fact that the trial is going on before the Special Judge, Lucknow and further appreciation of their statement by this Court so far as the applicant is concerned may affect the course of the trial either way but suffice is to say that no contraband is shown to have been recovered from the vehicle which was being driven by applicant. Admittedly the role of the instant applicant is distinguishable from the role of those whose role is direct, specific and those who have been arrested with the contraband, as the burden is heavy on them to explain the possession of the contraband, which is not the case with the applicant. Thus, the case of the co-accused person Bhanu Pratap whose bail application has been rejected by co-ordinate Bench of this Court is distinguishable than the case of the applicant. Coaccused Azeem Khan @ Azam Khan, who is the owner of the truck has been released on bail by this Court, vide order dated 17.07.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.10581 of 2022.

¶21

Keeping in view all the above reasons, in the considered

¶22

opinion of this Court, the twin conditions mentioned, as contained under Section 37(1)(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act stands satisfied, moreso on the ground that the instant applicant is not having any criminal antecedents and is in jail for more than one year and, thus, it is not likely that after release on bail he may flee from the process of law or may otherwise commit the similar offences again. In result, the instant bail application moved on behalf of the applicant is allowed.

¶23

Let the accused-applicant/ Pural Lal involved in aforesaid case be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶24

(i) The applicant shall remain present before the trial Court through the trial and when his presence would be required.

¶25

(ii) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶26

(iii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶27

(iv) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶28

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶29

Observations made herein-above by this Court are only for the purpose of disposal of this bail application and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case.

¶30

Order Date :- 2.5.2024 Praveen

¶31

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

Puran Lal v. Union of India Thru. N.C.B Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Puran Lal v. Union of India Thru. N.C.B 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Siddharth Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and Another

Ashish Kumar Singh Sisodiya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow

Rafiq @ Java Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Geeta Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko and Another

Ram Kailash and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Gulshan Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko. and Another