# Chhotey Lal v. U.O.I. N.C.B

- **Citation:** (2022) 5 ILRA 189
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-04-25
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 6298 of 2020
- **Bench:** Krishan Pahal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/chhotey-lal-v-u-o-i-n-c-b-48482
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973- Section 439- Bail -
Narcotic
Drug
and
Psychotropic
Substances
Act,
1985-
Sections
8(C)/18/29- Section 52(1) - Standing
Order 1/89 dated 13.06.1989 - out of
seven
samples
received,
there
is
a
difference of weight in three samples- two
samples
were
found
less
than
the
minimum quantity of 24 grams- The
recovered contraband is heavy in quantity
- There is compliance of the mandatory
provision of N.D.P.S. Act - The presence of
applicants far away from their usual place
of residence further casts shadow on his
defence - The sample has been taken
190 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
before the concerned Magistrate, which
negates the theory of any kind of
adulteration - There is nothing on record
to suggest that there is any animosity of
the accused to the officials of the N.C.B -
The Standing Order No. 1/88 has been
complied with. The call details further
corroborate the prosecution story- Minor
discrepancy in the weight of the sample
sent at the Forensic Laboratory cannot
shake the roots of the prosecution case.

Where the recovered contraband is heavy in
quantity, the mandatory provisions of the NDPS
Act have been complied with and no reason for
false implication of the accused is apparent from
the record , then merely minor differences in
weight of the samples will not be sufficient to
render the case of the prosecution doubtful.
(Para 15, 16)

Bail Application rejected. (E-3)

Judgements/ Case law (cited):-

## Text

5 All. Chhotey Lal Vs. U.O.I. N.C.B.
189
papers and had dropped him back near his
house.

16.

In
the
changing
social
circumstances, it has now become obvious
that nobody dares to depose against the
dreaded and hardened criminals out of fear.
The Informant, who himself is a victim
could garner some courage as some point
of time to depose against such high profile
criminals. The crime seems to have been
committed after a well orchestrated plan to
deprive
the
Informant/victim
of
his
valuable assets and the culpability of
applicant cannot be ruled out from the
evidence adduced.

17. It is quite clear that an order of
bail cannot be granted in an arbitrary or
fanciful manner. A ratio decidendi of the
judgement of the Apex Court in Anil
Kumar Yadav Vs. State (N.C.T.) of Delhi
and another2, has stated that in serious
crimes, the mere fact that the accused is in
custody for more than one year, may not be
a relevant consideration to release the
accused on bail.

18. Considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, the nature of
offence,
severity
of
offence,
threat
perception of the witnesses, complicity of
accused, involvement of higher echelons of
society as well as the rival submissions
advanced by the learned counsel for the
parties and without expressing any opinion
on the merits of the case, I am not inclined
to release the applicant on bail.

19. Accordingly, the bail application
of the applicant is rejected.

20. It is clarified that the observations
made herein are limited to the facts brought
in by the parties pertaining to the disposal
of
bail
application
and
the
said
observations shall have no bearing on the
merits of the case during trial.

21. However, it is directed that every
endeavor shall be made by the trial court to
conclude the trial expeditiously, if there is
no other legal impediment.
----------
(2022)05ILR A189
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 25.04.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 6298 of 2020
&
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1347 of 2022

Chhotey Lal ...Applicant
Versus
U.O.I. N.C.B. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Mohd. Salman, Anuj Dayal, Awadhesh
Mishra, Manish Srivastava, Nasreen Bano,
Pramod Kumar

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
A.S.G., Akhilesh Awasthi, Sikha Sinha

Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973- Section 439- Bail -
Narcotic
Drug
and
Psychotropic
Substances
Act,
1985-
Sections
8(C)/18/29- Section 52(1) - Standing
Order 1/89 dated 13.06.1989 - out of
seven
samples
received,
there
is
a
difference of weight in three samples- two
samples
were
found
less
than
the
minimum quantity of 24 grams- The
recovered contraband is heavy in quantity
- There is compliance of the mandatory
provision of N.D.P.S. Act - The presence of
applicants far away from their usual place
of residence further casts shadow on his
defence - The sample has been taken
190 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
before the concerned Magistrate, which
negates the theory of any kind of
adulteration - There is nothing on record
to suggest that there is any animosity of
the accused to the officials of the N.C.B -
The Standing Order No. 1/88 has been
complied with. The call details further
corroborate the prosecution story- Minor
discrepancy in the weight of the sample
sent at the Forensic Laboratory cannot
shake the roots of the prosecution case.

Where the recovered contraband is heavy in
quantity, the mandatory provisions of the NDPS
Act have been complied with and no reason for
false implication of the accused is apparent from
the record , then merely minor differences in
weight of the samples will not be sufficient to
render the case of the prosecution doubtful.
(Para 15, 16)

Bail Application rejected. (E-3)

Judgements/ Case law (cited):-

1. Rajesh Jagdamba Avasthi Vs St. of Goa, (
2005) 9 SCC 773

2. Crl. Appeal No.1821 of 1998 (Jai Pal & anr.
Vs St. of U.P.) dec. on 23.01.2018

3. Crl. Misc. Bail Appl. No.9660 of 2021 (Om
Prakash Verma Vs St. of U.P.) dec. on
11.03.2022

4. Than Kunwar Vs St. of Har., ( 2020) 5 SCC
260

5. Ramesh Rana Vs St. of U.P, 2019 SCC Online
All 4374

6. U.O.I Through N.C.B. Vs Md. Nawaz Khan,
AIR 2021 SC 4476

7. U.O.I Vs Mohanlal & anr, ( 2012) 7 SCC 712

8. St. of Ker. Vs Rajesh, AIR 2020 SC 721

9. St. of Punj. Vs Baljinder Singh, ( 2019) 10
SCC 473

10. Sumit Tomar Vs St. of Punj., AIR 2012 SC 728
11. U.O.I Vs Ram Samujh & anr. ( 1999) 9 SCC
429

12. Satpal Singh Vs St. of Punj., ( 2018) 13 SCC
813

13. Khet Singh Vs U.O.I, 2002 Cr.LJ 1832

14. Dehal Singh Vs St. of H.P. AIR 2010 SC
3594

15. U.O.I Vs Mohanlal & anr., ( 2012) 7 SCC 712

(Delivered by Hon'ble Krishan Pahal, J.)

1. Since the above two bail
applications
of
the
accused-applicants
pertain to common recovery, therefore, I
am deciding these bail applications by a
common judgment.

2. Heard Sri Anuj Dayal, learned
counsel for applicants and Sri Akhilesh
Kumar Awasthi, learned counsel for the
N.C.B. and perused the record.

3. Applicants seek bail in Case Crime
No.03 of 2020, under Sections 8(C)/18/29
of Narcotic of Drug and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985, Police Station
N.C.B., District Lucknow, during the
pendency of trial.

Facts in Brief:-

4. As per prosecution story, on the
secret information received by N.C.B. from
a squealer on 20.02.2020, a team was
constituted for arresting the accusedpersons, namely, Chhotey Lal and Kavinder
Kumar, from general bogey of Train
No.12237 Begumpura Express. The N.C.B.
team intercepted the said accused-persons
from the said general bogey on 20.02.2020
at 16.15 pm. Thereafter, apprehended
accused-persons were taken at platform
5 All. Chhotey Lal Vs. U.O.I. N.C.B.
191
no.7 and 4 Kg and 3 Kg Opium was
recovered respectively from Chhotey Lal
and Kavinder Kumar being contained in
their bags. The sample of 25 grams was
taken from each packet and sealed. The
sample of the said contraband was sent for
forensic analysis on 23.02.2020 and was
received in the Central Revenue Control
Laboratory on 24.02.2020 and the report
was prepared on 26.02.2020.

Rival Contentions:-

5. Learned counsel for the applicants
has stated that out of seven samples
received, there is a difference of weight in
three samples, out of which, sample P2S1
and P6S1 are found to be of 22.2 grams and
21.6 grams respectively. Thus, they are
found deficient of the requisite weight by
2.8 grams and 3.4 grams respectively.

6. On this count, learned counsel for
the applicants has placed much reliance on
the judgment of Supreme Court passed in
case of Rajesh Jagdamba Avasthi vs. State
of Goa1. Relevant part of the judgment is
quoted hereinasunder:-

 "14. We do not find it possible to
uphold this finding of the High Court. The
appellant was charged of having been
found in possession of charas weighing
180.70 gm. The charas recovered from him
was packed and sealed in two envelopes.
When the said envelopes were opened in
the laboratory by the Junior Scientific
Officer, PW 1, he found the quantity to be
different. While in one envelope the
difference was only minimal, in the other
the difference in weight was significant.
The High Court itself found that it could
not be described as a mere minor
discrepancy.
Learned
counsel
rightly
submitted before us that the High Court
was
not
justified
in
upholding
the
conviction of the appellant on the basis of
what was recovered only from envelope A
ignoring the quantity of charas found in
envelope B. This is because there was only
one search and seizure, and whatever was
recovered from the appellant was packed in
two envelopes. The credibility of the
recovery proceeding is considerably eroded
if it is found that the quantity actually
found by PW 1 was less than the quantity
sealed and sent to him. As he rightly
emphasised, the question was not how
much was seized, but whether there was an
actual seizure, and whether what was
seized was really sent for chemical analysis
to PW 1. The prosecution has not been able
to explain this discrepancy and, therefore,
it renders the case of the prosecution
doubtful."

7. Learned counsel for the applicants
has further stated that as the quantity of
each sample for chemical analysis should
not be less than 24 grams in the case of
Opium. The requisite directions provided in
Standing Order 1/89 dated 13.06.1989 have
not been followed and the applicants are
entitled for bail on this ground only. As in
the present case, two samples were found
less than the minimum quantity of 24
grams.

8. Learned counsel for the applicants
has placed reliance on the judgment of this
Court passed in Criminal Appeal No.1821
of 1998 (Jai Pal and Another vs. State of
U.P.) decided on 23.01.2018. Relevant part
of the judgment is quoted hereinasunder:-

"13. Firstly, it has to be seen
whether it was necessary for prosecution to
take weight of the recovered contraband
substance and its sample or not. In this
regard, learned counsel for the appellant
192 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
has relied upon the Standing Order No.
1/89 para 2.3 of which provides as follows:

"2.3 The quantity to be drawn in
each sample for chemical test shall not be
less than 5 grams in respect of all narcotic
drugs and psychotropic substances save in
the case of opium, ganja and charas
(hashish) where quantity of 24 grams in
each case is required for chemical test. The
same quantities shall be taken for the
duplicate sample also. The seized drugs in
the packages/containers shall be well
mixed to make it homogeneous and
representative
before
the
sample
(in
duplicate) is drawn."

15. This Court is of the opinion that
the view of the learned A.G.A. is not tenable
because under the Standing Instructions 1/88
issued by the Narcotics Drugs Bureau on
15.3.1988 , though after the recovery made in
the present case, provided for the mode to be
adopted to take sample of the contraband,
which prescribed the certain quantity to be
taken out of the contraband. The Standing
Order 1 of 89 dated 13.6.1989 issued by
Government of India (supra) also prescribes
that in case of opium not less than 24 Grams
would be taken as sample from the recovered
contraband. These Standing Orders and
Instructions do indicate that from out of the
recovered substance, the sample which was
required to be taken must be weighed and the
same is required to be collected on the spot as
early as possible unless there were such
circumstances when it was not possible to
collect the sample on the spot. It may also be
taken into consideration that under the Old
Act, Section 27 of the Act provided lesser
punishment for illegal possession of small
quantity of any Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic
Substance
for
personal
consumption which would require weighing
of the contraband substance. Under the
provisions of the old Act the small quantity of
opium was prescribed to be 5 grams. as per
notification No. S.O. 827 (E) dated 4.11.1985
published in the Gazetted of India (Extra),
Part 2 Section 3 (ii) dated 14.11.1985, pp. 2-3
issued by Ministry of Finance, Department of
Revenue. Hence it will be supposed that the
prosecution was duty bound to weigh the
contraband substance allegedly recovered
from the accused to know whether the
recovered substance was small quantity or
above that for determining whether he would
be entitled for the benefit of small quantity for
personal consumption. The record reveals
that in recovery memo 75 grams. opium is
alleged to have been found from the accused
but no mention is made as to how the same
was assessed to be 75 grams. as no weighing
machine is recorded to have been called for,
for its weighing nor the quantity of its sample
is recorded therein. In this regard, P.W.1 has
stated the same facts which have been
mentioned in the recovery memo. In crossexamination this witness admitted that the
weight of opium was recorded to be 75 gram
on the basis of conjecture. Similarly P.W.2
has also repeated the same statement as is
mentioned in the recovery memo, in
examination-in-chief but even he has not
disclosed as to how the same was weighed to
be 75 grams. Both these witnesses have also
not stated about weighing of the sample of
the contraband also. It would also be
pertinent to mention here that in the F.S.L.
report also the quantity received of opium for
being tested has not been recorded, hence, it
cannot be held that the required minimum
quantity of 24 gram was sent to them for
being analysed which would also make the
correctness of the said report to be doubtful."

9. Learned counsel for the applicants
has also placed much reliance on the
judgment of this Court passed in Criminal
Misc. Bail Application No.9660 of 2021
(Om Prakash Verma vs. State of U.P.)
decided on 11.03.2022, wherein it has been
5 All. Chhotey Lal Vs. U.O.I. N.C.B.
193
opined that the Standing Order and the
other guidelines issued by the Authority
having legal sanction are required to be
complied by the Arresting Authorities. He
has further submitted that the recovered
contraband is slightly above on the side of
commercial quantity as the commercial
quantity of Opium is 2.5 Kg. He has also
submitted that there are no criminal history
of the applicants.

10. Learned counsel for N.C.B., Sri
Akhilesh Kumar Awasthi has vehemently
opposed the bail application on the ground
that the applicants are the perpetrator of the
crime and a total of 7 Kg illegal Opium has
been recovered from the conscious and
constructive possession of the applicants,
which is much more than commercial
quantity. He has further stated that the
mandatory provisions of Sections 50 and
57 have been religiously followed and after
completing the investigation, a complaint
was filed by the N.C.B. before the
competent authority. He has further stated
that the applicants are the residents of
Jharkhand
and
were
arrested
from
Charbagh Railway Station, Lucknow. He
has further submitted that there are two
independent witnesses of the recovery,
namely, Rakesh Joshi and Sachin Kumar
and the recovery has been undertaken in the
present of Gazetted Officer Sujit Kumar
Singh. Thus, the mandatory provision of
Section 50 N.D.P.S. Act has been complied
with. He has further stated that at the spot,
test were conducted by D.D.T. Kit and it
was found positive for Opium. He has
further stated that C.D.R. analysis clearly
shows the connection of the accusedapplicants. He has further stated that the
samples were taken and sent for chemical
analysis on 23.02.2020 and was received at
the F.S.L. on 24.02.2020 and the test was
conducted on 16.03.2020 and the report
was prepared on 26.05.2020, which is on
record. There is complete compliance of
the Standing Order 1/89 of the N.C.B. The
minor difference in weight of two samples
out
of
seven
does
not
falsify
the
prosecution story.

11. Learned counsel has further stated
that the case law referred to by learned
counsel for applicant are not applicable to the
present subject matter at this point of time,
adjudication is for the purpose of bail only
and we are not dealing with the order of
conviction or acquittal. The recovered
contraband is commercial in quantity. The
accused persons are the residents of
Jharkhand and there is nothing on record to
suggest that they have been falsely implicated
by the N.C.B. and there is nothing on record
to suggest as to what animosity the N.C.B.
had with the applicants and the another
accused person. The applicants are the
resident of Jharkhand. There is no reason for
their false implication, that too regarding a
recovery of this magnitude.

12. Learned counsel for N.C.B. has
placed reliance on the following judgments
:-

1. Than Kunwar vs. State of
Haryana2

2. Ramesh Rana vs. State of U.P.
3

3. Union of India Through
N.C.B. vs. Md. Nawaz Khan4

4. Union of India vs. Mohanlal
and another5

5. State of Kerala vs. Rajesh6

6. State of Punjab vs. Baljinder
Singh7

7. Sumit Tomar vs. State of
Punjab8

8. Union of India vs. Ram
Samujh And another9
194 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

9. Satpal Singh vs. State of
Punjab10

10. Khet Singh vs. Union of
India11

11. Dehal Singh vs. State of
H.P.12

13. It is also provided in Section
52(1) of NDPS Act, wherein it is provided
that the sample from the contraband should
be taken before a Magistrate. The sample in
the present case has been taken before the
concerned Magistrate and the same law has
been settled by the Apex Court. The taking
of the sample before a Magistrate rules out
any kind of adulteration or interpolation in
the collection of the sample.

14. The relevant portions of the
judgment rendered by the Apex Court in
Union
of
India
vs.
Mohanlal
and
another13 are as follows :-

"12. Section 52A as amended by
Act 16 of 2014, deals with disposal of
seized drugs and psychotropic substances.
It reads:

Section 52A: Disposal of seized
narcotic
drugs
and
psychotropic
substances.

(1) The Central Government
may, having regard to the hazardous
nature
of
any
narcotic
drugs
or
psychotropic
substances,
their
vulnerability
to
theft,
substitution,
constraints of proper storage space or
any other relevant considerations, by
notification published in the Official
Gazette, specify such narcotic drugs or
psychotropic substances or class of
narcotic drugs or class of psychotropic
substances which shall, as soon as may
be after their seizure, be disposed of by
such officer and in such manner as that
Government may from time to time,
determine after following the procedure
hereinafter specified.

(2) Where any narcotic drug or
psychotropic substance has been seized
and forwarded to the officer-in-charge of
the nearest police station or to the officer
empowered Under Section 53, the officer
referred to in Sub-section (1) shall
prepare an inventory of such narcotic
drugs
or
psychotropic
substances
containing such details relating to their
description, quality, quantity, mode of
packing, marks, numbers or such other
identifying particulars of the narcotic
drugs or psychotropic substances or the
packing in which they are packed,
country of origin and other particulars as
the officer referred to in Sub-section (1)
may consider relevant to the identity of
the
narcotic
drugs
or
psychotropic
substances in any proceedings under this
Act and make an application, to any
Magistrate for the purpose of-

(a) certifying the correctness of
the inventory so prepared; or

(b) taking, in the presence of such
Magistrate, photographs of such drugs or
substances and certifying such photographs
as true; or

(c)
allowing
to
draw
representative samples of such drugs or
substances, in the presence of such
Magistrate and certifying the correctness of
any list of samples so drawn.

(3) When an application is made
Under Sub-section (2), the Magistrate
shall, as soon as may be, allow the
application.

(4)
Notwithstanding
anything
contained in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
(1 of 1872) or the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), every court
trying an offence under this Act, shall treat
the inventory, the photographs of [narcotic
drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled
5 All. Chhotey Lal Vs. U.O.I. N.C.B.
195
substances or conveyances] and any list of
samples drawn Under Sub-section (2) and
certified by the Magistrate, as primary
evidence in respect of such offence.]

13. It is manifest from Section
52A(2)(c) (supra) that upon seizure of the
contraband the same has to be forwarded
either to the officer in-charge of the nearest
police station or to the officer empowered
Under Section 53 who shall prepare an
inventory as stipulated in the said provision
and make an application to the Magistrate
for
purposes
of
(a)
certifying
the
correctness of the inventory (b) certifying
photographs of such drugs or substances
taken before the Magistrate as true and (c)
to draw representative samples in the
presence of the Magistrate and certifying
the correctness of the list of samples so
drawn. Sub-section (3) of Section 52-A
requires that the Magistrate shall as soon
as may be allow the application. This
implies that no sooner the seizure is
effected and the contraband forwarded to
the officer in charge of the Police Station
or the officer empowered, the officer
concerned is in law duty bound to approach
the Magistrate for the purposes mentioned
above including grant of permission to
draw
representative
samples
in
his
presence, which samples will then be
enlisted and the correctness of the list of
samples
so
drawn
certified
by
the
Magistrate. In other words, the process of
drawing of samples has to be in the
presence and under the supervision of the
Magistrate and the entire exercise has to be
certified by him to be correct. The question
of drawing of samples at the time of seizure
which, more often than not, takes place in
the absence of the Magistrate does not in
the above scheme of things arise. This is so
especially when according to Section 52A(4) of the Act, samples drawn and
certified by the Magistrate in compliance
with Sub-section (2) and (3) of Section 52A above constitute primary evidence for the
purpose of the trial. Suffice it to say that
there is no provision in the Act that
mandates taking of samples at the time of
seizure. That is perhaps why none of the
States claim to be taking samples at the
time of seizure. Be that as it may, a conflict
between the statutory provision governing
taking of samples and the standing order
issued by the Central Government is
evident when the two are placed in
juxtaposition. There is no gainsaid that
such a conflict shall have to be resolved in
favour of the statute on first principles of
interpretation but the continuance of the
statutory notification in its present form is
bound to create confusion in the minds of
the
authorities
concerned
instead
of
helping them in the discharge of their
duties. The Central Government would,
therefore, do well, to re-examine the matter
and take suitable steps in the above
direction."

Conclusion:-

15. The recovered contraband is
heavy in quantity. There is compliance of
the mandatory provision of N.D.P.S. Act.
The presence of applicants far away from
their usual place of residence further
casts shadow on his defence. The sample
has been taken before the concerned
Magistrate, which negates the theory of
any kind of adulteration. There is nothing
on record to suggest that there is any
animosity of the accused to the officials
of the N.C.B. The Standing Order No.
1/88 has been complied with. The call
details
further
corroborate
the
prosecution story.

16. Minor discrepancy in the weight
of the sample sent at the Forensic
196 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Laboratory cannot shake the roots of the
prosecution case.

17. Considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, submissions
advanced by learned counsel for the parties,
nature of offence, evidence on record,
pending investigation and considering the
complicity
of
accused,
severity
of
punishment,
at
this
stage,
without
commenting any opinion on the merits of
the case, this Court is not inclined to
release the applicants on bail.

18. Both the bail applications are,
accordingly, rejected.

19. However, it is directed that the
court below may proceed with the trial and
reach
at
the
logical
conclusion
expeditiously,
if
there
is
no
legal
impediment, within a period of one year
from the date of production of a certified
copy of this order.

20. It is clarified that the observations
made herein are limited to the facts brought
in by the parties pertaining to the disposal
of
bail
application
and
the
said
observations shall have no bearing on the
merits of the case during trial.
----------
(2022)05ILR A196
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 09.05.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8991 of 2021

Ajay Kumar Pal & Anr. ...Applicants
Versus
The State ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicants:
Vijay Kishor Mishra, Sachchidanand, Sanjay
Parmar

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
Anurag Kumar Singh, Ajai Kumar, Vivek
Kumar Rai

Criminal Law- Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973- Section 439- Bail- Long period of
incarceration- In the present case, more
than nine years and one month's period
have passed since the present applicants
are in jail and despite the specific
direction being issued by this Court on
09.08.2016
to
conclude
the
trial
expeditiously by fixing day-to-day dates
taking recourse of Section 309 Cr.P.C.
even the trial has not been completed half
the
way
inasmuch
as
out
of
81
prosecution
witnesses,
only
21
prosecution
witnesses
have
been
examined by now, therefore, the aforesaid
fact may convince the Court to consider
the present bail application for releasing
the applicants on bail.

Prolonged or indefinite incarceration of the
accused violates the Right to a fair and speedy
trial which is one of the fundamental rights
guaranteed under the Constitution of India and
therefore
the
bleak
possibility
of
early
conclusion of the trial may be one of the
considerations for enlarging the accused on bail.
( Para 22)

Bail Application allowed. (E-3)

Judgements/ Case law relied upon:-

1. U.O.I Vs K.A. Najeeb AIR 2021 Supreme
Court 712

2. Paras Ram Vishnoi Vs The Director, CBI
passed in Crl. Appeal No.693 of 2021 (Arising
out of SLP (Crl.) 3610 of 2020

3. In re:Ashim @ Asim Kumar Haranath
Bhattacharya @ Asim Harinath Bhattacharya @
Aseem Kumar Bhattacharya Vs N.I.A (2022) 1
SCC (Cri.) 442