Dismissed

Devendra Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC8 Jun 2023BA2/30/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Uttarakhand rejected the second bail application of Devendra Singh, an accused in an NDPS case. The court held recovery from the accused's bag did not require compliance with Section 50 for personal search, distinguishing the current case from previous precedents like State of Punjab v. Baljinder Singh.

What did the court decide?

The second bail application is rejected. The applicant remains in judicial custody.

Devendra Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand — Narcotics (NDPS) | Uttarakhand HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶2

Second Bail Application No. 30 of 2023

Devendra Singh

….....Applicant

Versus

State of Uttarakhand

….….Respondent

Present:-

Mr. Harshit Sanwal, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Lalit Miglani, AGA for the State.

¶10

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

¶11

Applicant Devendra Singh is in judicial custody in FIR No. 13 of 2021 dated 10.06.2021, under Sections 8/20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“the Act”), P.S. Mukteshwar, District Nainital. He has sought his release on bail.

¶12

This is second bail application of the applicant. His first bail application has been dismissed in nonprosecution on 17.11.2022.

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶14

¶15

According to the FIR, on 10.06.2021, 1.613 kgs. Charas was recovered from the possession of applicant, which he was carrying in his bag.

¶16

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that at the relevant time, recovery was also made from the co-accused; compliance of Section 50 of the Act has not been done; consent was joint, which vitiates the entire proceedings.

¶17

Learned counsel for the applicant refers to the principles of law as laid down in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Parmanand & another, (2014) 5 SCC 345 and S.K. Raju v. State of West Bengal, (2018) 9 SCC 708.

¶18

On the other hand, learned State Counsel would submit that the recovery was not made from personal search, therefore, there was no question of applicability of Section 50 of the Act.

¶19

In the case of Parmanand ( supra ), the Hon’ble Supreme Court relied on the judgment in the case of Dilip v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2007) 1 SCC 450. In the case of Dilip ( supra ), recovery was made from a Scooter, but personal search of the accused was also done. Still, the court held that it is a case of non-compliance of Section 50 of the Act and a finding of acquittal was recorded.

¶20

¶21

In the case of S.K. Raju ( supra ), the Hon’ble Supreme Court did not lay down any law as such, but did follow the law as laid down in the case of Parmanand (supra). Subsequent to it, in the case of State of Punjab v. Baljinder Singh, (2019) 10 SCC 473, the Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed the law and held that the law laid down in the case of Dilip ( supra ) is not a correct law. In para 17 and 18, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as hereunder:-

¶22

“17. In the instant case, the personal search of the accused did not result in recovery of any contraband. Even if there was any such recovery, the same could not be relied upon for want of compliance of the requirements of Section 50 of the Act. But the search of the vehicle and recovery of contraband pursuant thereto having stood proved, merely because there was non-compliance of Section 50 of the Act as far as “personal search” was concerned, no benefit can be extended so as to invalidate the effect of recovery from the search of the vehicle. Any such idea would be directly in the teeth of conclusion (3) as aforesaid.

¶23

The decision of this Court in Dilip v. State of M.P., (2007) 1 SCC 450 : (2007) 1 SCC (Cri) 377, however, has not adverted to the distinction as discussed hereinabove and proceeded to confer advantage upon the accused even in respect of recovery from the vehicle, on the ground that the requirements of Section 50 relating to personal search were not complied with. In our view, the decision of this Court in the said judgment in Dilip v. State of M.P., (2007) 1 SCC 450 : (2007) 1 SCC (Cri) 377 is not correct and is opposed to the law laid down by this Court in State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh, (1999) 6 SCC 172 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 1080 and other judgments.”

¶24

In the instant case, recovery has not been made

¶25

from personal search. It is from a bag. It does not require compliance of Section 50 of the Act, in view of the judgment in the case of Baljinder Singh ( supra ). No other point has been raised on behalf of the applicant.

¶26

¶27

Having considered, this Court is of the view that it is not a case fit for bail. Accordingly, the bail application deserves to be rejected.

¶28

The second bail application is rejected.

¶29

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 08.06.2023

¶30

Avneet/

Devendra Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devendra Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mathuresh Kumar Bajpai Vs State of Uttarakhand

Pradeep Kumar Naudiyal Vs State of Uttarakhand

Veer Singh Yadav Vs State of Uttarakhand

Hakam Singh Rawat Vs State of Uttarakhand

Mehrum Nisha Vs State of Uttarakhand

Manoj Kumar Vs State of Uttarakhand