Allowed

Sameer Nandan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Allahabad HC14 Nov 2024BAIL/9210/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application under sections 8/20 NDPS Act involving recovery of 41.602 kg ganja. Court noted samples were not taken from all packets per Rules 9 and 10 and no public eyewitness; granted bail to applicant with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions; enquiry report against S.I. to be filed within two weeks.

Sameer Nandan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:75489

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9210 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Sameer Nandan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Pawan Kumar Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G. A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

In compliance of the order dated 5.11.2024, Superintendent of Police, Bahraich and Akhilesh Kumar, S.I. concerned are present before this Court.

¶7

Compliance Affidavits filed today by Ms. Brinda Shukla, Superintendent of Police, Bahraich and Sri Akhilesh Kumar, S.I. are taken on record.

¶8

On query being asked to the officer concerned, he submits that initially samples were not taken from all the packets and after it was indicated by the Magistrate concerned, subsequently other samples were taken and he has admitted that due to inadvertence, the samples could not be taken from all the packets at the time of recovery.

¶9

Superintendent of Police, Bahraich is appearing before this Court and submits that enquiry has been initiated against the erring officer, namely, Akhilesh Kumar, S.I. and she shall submits her report through Senior Registrar of this Court within the period of two weeks.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vinod Kumar Sahi, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Nirmal Kumar Pandey, learned A.G.A.-I on bail application.

¶11

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 280 of 2024, under sections 8/20 of the N.D.P.S Act ,Police Station-Kotwali Dehat, District -Bahraich.

¶12

Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant matter due to ulterior motive. He further submits hat as per prosecution story, on 3.6.2024, the applicant along with four other co-accused persons were arrested along with contraband

¶13

substance i.e. 41.602 kg ganja, which is above than the commercial quantity, though there is no independent public eye-witness account. He added that the samples were taken in violation of the provisions of Rules 9 and 10 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Seizur, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules 2022'), as from the recovery memo it is evident that only four samples were taken from 28 packets thus the recovery vitiates in the eyes of law. He also submits that the applicant is languishing in jail since 3.6.2024. He lastly added that there is no previous criminal antecedent of the applicant and he undertakes that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶14

Per contra, learned counsels for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that subsequently samples were taken and it was sent to the forensic science lab but does not dispute the fact that initially only four samples were taken from 28 packets. He also added that enquiry has been initiated against the erring officers and report shall be submitted within two weeks.

¶15

Having heard learned counsels for the parties and taking account of the statement of Akhilesh Kumar, S.I. and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires that the recovery proceedings is not in consonance with the provisions of Rules 9 and 10 of the Rules, 2022; there is also not any independent public eye witness of the recvoery; the applicant is languishing in jail since 3.6.2024; there is no previous criminal antecedent of the applicant; coupled with the fact that the applicant has undertaken that if he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶16

Considering the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case of bail.

¶17

Let the applicant Sameer Nandan , involved in the aforementioned crime be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:-

¶18

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

¶19

(2) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. He shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code;

¶20

(3) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.; and

¶21

(4) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶22

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶23

It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case.

¶24

While parting from this order, the Superintendent of Police, Bahraich is directed to convening workshop/symposium to make aware all the police officials/officer with respect to the compliance of the provisions of The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Seizur, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022. It is further directed that enquiry so instituted against S.I.-Akhilesh Kumar shall placed before this Court through Senior Registrar of this Court within two weeks.

¶25

Personal appearance of Superintendent of Police, Bahraich and Sri Akhilesh Kumar, S.I. before this Court are exempted.

¶26

Order Dat e :- 14.11.2024 Anu j Sing h

¶27

Digitally signed by :- ANUJ PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sameer Nandan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sameer Nandan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Narayan Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Arpit Maurya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko

Shubham Tiwari @ Kushal Tiwari and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Saleem Darji Vs State of U.P. Thru. Additional Chief Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. U,P. Lko.

Kallan Alias Sabir Alias Tanne Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko.

Salman @ Raju, Major Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.