Dismissed¶20

Pankaj Kumar v. Union of India Thru. Deputy Narcotics Commissioner Central Bureau of Narcotics Lko.

Allahabad HC3 Apr 2025BAIL/10843/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail rejected; NDPS; Section 8/22/29 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985; Section 42 NDPS; Section 54 NDPS presumption; methamphetamine 250 grams; sample tampering; chain of custody gap 3.30-4.00 PM; recovery memo signed by officer and independent witnesses; videography of seizure; laboratory gross weight 17.211 grams vs two 5-gram samples; auto press plastic pouch and paper envelope; Khet Singh v. Union of India (2002) 4 SCC 380 relied on and distinguished; Central Bureau of Narcotics Barabanki; Case Crime No.01 of 2024; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; Manish Mathur J.; order date 3.4.2025.

What did the court decide?

The bail application is rejected: considering the submissions and material on record, the Court does not find any good ground for grant of bail. ¶20

Pankaj Kumar Vs Union of India Thru. Deputy Narcotics… — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant is entitled to release on bail in Case Crime No.01 of 2024 under Sections 8/22/29 of the NDPS Act. +2 more

¶8

Court's answer

The bail application is rejected: considering the submissions and material on record, the Court does not find any good ground for grant of bail.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

The lack of recorded possession of the recovered substance between 3.30 P.M. and 04.00 P.M. is irrelevant, because the recovery memo certifies the recovery of 250 grams of the product and bears the signatures of the officer concerned together with independent witnesses.

¶16

Key takeaways

The excess of the gross sample weight shown on the laboratory certification dated 14.09.2024 over the two five-gram samples may be explained by the samples having been received alongwith the auto press plastic pouch and paper envelope, subject to trial.ratio¶17
Relying on Khet Singh v. Union of India, minor discrepancies in recovery cannot scuttle the entire process of the case; the recovery memo further evidences that videography of the entire event was made.ratio¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

NDPS Act — bail application rejected (Manish Mathur, J., Lucknow Bench, 3.4.2025). Applicant arrested 30.07.2024 with alleged recovery of 250 grams Methamphetamine (Case Crime No.01 of 2024, Ss. 8/22/29 NDPS Act, P.S. CBN Barabanki). Applicant argued (i) no indication in the recovery memo of possession of the recovered product from 3.30 P.M. till 04.00 P.M., giving rise to chance of tampering, and (ii) gross weight of sample received in laboratory shown as 17.211 grams against two 5-gram samples collected, indicating tampering, relying on Khet Singh v. Union of India (2002) 4 SCC 380. Court held: the custody gap loses relevance once the recovery memo certifies the quantity recovered with signatures of officer and independent witnesses; laboratory certification dated 14.09.2024 showed gross receipt inclusive of auto press plastic pouch and paper envelope, which may explain the discrepancy subject to trial; per Khet Singh, minor discrepancies cannot scuttle the case, and videography of the entire event existed. The applicant-invoked precedent distinguished as there no recovery memo was prepared on the spot. State's reliance on Ss. 42 and 54 NDPS Act (raiding party's powers and statutory presumption) recorded. Bail rejected.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:18553

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10843 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Pankaj Kumar Opposite Party :- Union Of India Thru. Deputy Narcotics Commissioner Central Bureau Of Narcotics Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Abhishek Awasthi,Sant Lal Dixit,Upendra Prakash Pathak

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- S M Singh Royekwar

¶6

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for applicant and Mr. S. M. Singh Royekwar, learned counsel for opposite party- Central Bureau of Narcotics, Lucknow.

¶8

This First Bail Application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.01 of 2024, under Section 8/22/29 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, P.S. Central Bureau of Narcotics (C.B.N.),District Barabanki.

¶9

As per contents of recovery memo, incident has taken place on 30.07.2024 when 250 grams of Methamphetamine has allegedly been recovered from the person of applicant with recovery being indicated at about 03.00 P.M.

¶10

Learned counsel for applicant submits that he has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him. He has specifically adverted to the recovery memo to submit that although recovery was effected allegedly at 03.00 P.M. but the police party alongwith independent witnesses left the spot at about 03.30 P.M. and reached the office at 04.00 P.M for purposes of making samples of the recovered product. It is therefore submitted that there is no indication in the recovery memo with regard to possession of recovered product from 3.30 P.M. till 04.00 P.M. and has therefore submitted that there is great chance of tampering with the sample. It is submitted that applicant is under incarceration since 30.07.2024 with only charges having been framed in the complaint.

¶11

He has secondly submitted that a perusal of the sample received in the laboratory indicates the

¶12

gross weight of sample as 17.211 grams whereas as per recovery memo, two samples of 5 gram each were collected and sent to the laboratory and therefore discrepancy in samples clearly indicates tampering. He has also adverted to judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Khet Singh versus Union of India reported in (2002) 4 Supreme Court Cases 380.

¶13

Learned counsel for opposite parties has opposed bail application with the submission that the recovery memo clearly indicates the aspect that at the time of recovery, 250 grams of Methamphetamine has been recovered and the recovery memo has been signed not only by the officer but by the independent witnesses as well. It is submitted that in terms of Section 42 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, the raiding party was very well within its rights to have taking the product to their office for purposes of sealing the sample. It is also submitted that the recovery memo clearly indicates possession of recovered product with raiding team. It is also submitted that presumption of Section 54 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 would clearly be against the applicant.

¶14

It is also submitted that there is in fact no discrepancy in the sample collected and that received in the laboratory since the receiving in laboratory clearly indicates gross weight receipt which includes weight of the sample, auto press plastic pouch and paper envelop with cable. It is therefore submitted that alleged discrepancy of 7.211 gram would be covered with the plastic pouch and paper envelope with level and he also adverts to the fact that recovery memo clearly indicates videography of the entire sequences of events as also the fact that samples were sealed in the presence of Magistrate. He has placed reliance on judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Khet Singh versus Union of India reported in (2002) 4 Supreme Court Cases 380.

¶15

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it appears that the recovery memo

¶16

clearly indicates that recovery of 250 grams of the product recovery memo is signed by the officer concerned alongwith independent witnesses. The possession of sample during 30.30 P.M.to 04.00 P.M. therefore looses its relevance once the amount of product recovered is certificated in the recovery memo.

¶17

So far as discrepancy of sample received by the laboratory is concerned, the certification of laboratory dated 14.09.2024 indicates only gross sample received which clearly exceeds the two samples of five gram each since they were received alongwith auto press plastic pouch and paper envelope which may explain the discrepancy subject to trial.

¶18

In the case of Khet Singh (supra), Hon'ble the Supreme Court has clearly held that minor discrepancies in recovery could not scuffle the entire process of case. It is also evident from recovery memo that videography of the entire event has been made.

¶19

The judgment relied upon by learned counsel for applicant is clearly distinguishable in view of the fact that in the said case, no recovery memo was prepared on the spot and all the papers were prepared upon reaching the office of the raiding party. In the present case, recovery memo clearly has been made on the spot with signatures of not only the officers but independent witnesses also affixed thereto.

¶20

Considering the aforesaid, this Court does not find any good ground, the bail application is accordingly rejected .

¶21

Order Date : - 3.4.2025 Subodh/-

¶22

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

Pankaj Kumar v. Union of India Thru. Deputy Narcotics Commissioner Central Bureau of Narcotics Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pankaj Kumar v. Union of India Thru. Deputy Narcotics Commissioner Central Bureau of Narcotics Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Imran @ Imran Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Chandra Prakash Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Dharmendra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Suresh Kumar Alias Badaku vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Vimlesh Verma @ Vimlesh Kumar Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and 4 Others

Saif Rashid Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.