# Indrajeet Singh v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2022) 12 ILRA 481
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-11-11
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Ist Bail Application No. 24375 of 2022
- **Bench:** Gajendra Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/indrajeet-singh-v-state-of-u-p-anr-47904
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - Bail - The Code of
criminal procedure, 1973 - Section 439 ,
Narcotic
Drugs
and
Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 - Section 8/20 , 37 -
Offences to be cognizable and nonbailable
-
"Reasonable
grounds"
-
exercise of power to grant bail is not only
subject to the limitations contained under
Section 439 of the CrPC - but is also
subject to the limitation placed by Section
37 which commences with non-obstante
clause - merely recording the submissions
of the parties does not amount to an
indication of a judicial or, for that matter,
a judicious application of mind.(Para - 8,9)

Commercial quantity of Ganja 20 kgs -
recovered & seized total amount of Ganja
151.45 Kgs - more than commercial quantity -
recovery of huge quantity of Ganja - applicant
was apprehended at spot - conscious and
constructive possession over recovered Ganja
.(Para - 5)

HELD:- No reasonable ground in terms of
Section 37 of N.D.P.S. Act to hold that applicant
is not guilty of an offence and he is not likely to
commit any offence while on bail.(Para - )

Bail application rejected. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

12 All. Indrajeet Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
481

2. that the applicant shall not,
directly or indirectly make any inducement,
threat or promise to any person acquainted
with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him
from disclosing such facts to the court or to
any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

3. that the applicant shall not leave
India without previous permission of the court;

4. that the applicant shall not tamper
with the evidence during the trial;

5. that the applicant shall not
pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

6. that the applicant shall appear
before the trial court on each date fixed unless
personal presence is exempted;

20. In case of breach of any of the above
conditions, the court below shall have the
liberty to cancel the bail granted to the
applicant.
----------
(2022) 12 ILRA 481
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.11.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE GAJENDRA KUMAR, J.

Criminal Misc. Ist Bail Application No. 24375 of
2022

Indrajeet Singh ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri R.S. Dubey, Smt. Savita Dubey

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

(A) Criminal Law - Bail - The Code of
criminal procedure, 1973 - Section 439 ,
Narcotic
Drugs
and
Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 - Section 8/20 , 37 -
Offences to be cognizable and nonbailable
-
"Reasonable
grounds"
-
exercise of power to grant bail is not only
subject to the limitations contained under
Section 439 of the CrPC - but is also
subject to the limitation placed by Section
37 which commences with non-obstante
clause - merely recording the submissions
of the parties does not amount to an
indication of a judicial or, for that matter,
a judicious application of mind.(Para - 8,9)

Commercial quantity of Ganja 20 kgs -
recovered & seized total amount of Ganja
151.45 Kgs - more than commercial quantity -
recovery of huge quantity of Ganja - applicant
was apprehended at spot - conscious and
constructive possession over recovered Ganja
.(Para - 5)

HELD:- No reasonable ground in terms of
Section 37 of N.D.P.S. Act to hold that applicant
is not guilty of an offence and he is not likely to
commit any offence while on bail.(Para - )

Bail application rejected. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

1. St. of Kerala Vs Rajesh, AIR 2020 SC 721

2. U.O.I. Vs Prateek Shukla, AIR, 2021 SC 1509

(Delivered by Hon'ble Gajendra Kumar, J.)

1. This bail application has been filed
to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case
Crime No. 127/2022, under section 8/20 of
Narcotics
Drugs
and
Psychotropic
Substances Act,1985 Police Station-Geeda,
District Gorakhpur.

2. According to the prosecution story,
believing upon the information of the
''Mukhbir', during patrolling duty, police
personnel went on the spot i.e. Tandua Toll
Plaza, at Devariya- Gorakhpur By-pass and
arrested all the the three accused persons
including
the
present
applicant
and
recovered 151.450 kg 'Ganza' from the
482 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Truck bearing No.HR38Z7205, wherein,
applicant was a driver.

3. Learned Counsel for the applicant
submitted that the applicant is innocent and
has been falsely implicated in the present
crime due to ulterior motive. It is further
submitted that instant FIR has been lodged
by the police is only with the a view to
harass the applicant. The alleged truck was
found at the public place and crowded area
but
neither
any
public
witness
has
supported the prosecution story nor the
Investigation Team has recorded any
statements of any individual witnesses,
who have supported the case.

4. Learned AGA appearing for the
State has very vehemently opposed the
prayer for the grant of bail of the applicant
and submitted that applicant was arrested
on the spot and he was involved in
committing the aforesaid offence as has
been narrated in the FIR.

5. Having heard learned counsel for
the parties and after perusal of records, it is
evident that there is no dispute that
commercial quantity of Ganja is 20 kgs and
recovered & seized total amount of Ganja
is 151.45 Kgs in the present case, which is
more
than
the
commercial
quantity,
therefore, Section 37 of Narcotics Drugs
and
Psychotropic
Substances
Act
is
attracted in this case, which is in addition to
the Section 439 of Cr.P.C. and mandatory
in nature.

6. In view of Section 37 of N.D.P.S
Act, before granting the bail for the offence
under N.D.P.S Act twin conditions as
provided under Section 37(1)(b)(i) and (ii)
and have to be satisfied. For ready
reference, Section 37 of NDPS Act, reads
as follows:-

"37. Offences to be cognizable
and non-bailable-

(1)
Notwithstanding
anything
contained in the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)

(a) every offence punishable
under this Act shall be cognizable;

(b) no person accused of an
offence punishable for 2[offences under
section 19 or section 24 or section 27A and
also for offences involving commercial
quantity] shall be released on bail or on his
own bond unless

(i) the Public Prosecutor has
been given an opportunity to oppose the
application for such release, and

(ii) where the Public Prosecutor
opposes the application, the court is
satisfied that there are reasonable grounds
for believing that he is not guilty of such
offence and that he is not likely to commit
any offence while on bail.

(2) The limitations on granting of
bail specified in clause (b) of sub-section
(1) are in addition to the limitations under
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of
1974) or any other law for the time being in
force, on granting of bail.]

7. On several occasions, the Hon'ble
Apex Court has considered the issue
relating to provisions of Section 37 of the
N.D.P.S.
Act
and
after
wholesome
treatment laid down guidelines in this
regards, which would be useful to quote
herein-below:

"The
expression
'reasonable
grounds' has not been defined in the
N.D.P.S. Act, but the Apex Court in the case
of Union of India Vs. Rattan Mallik
@Habul
has
settled
the
expression
"reasonable
grounds".
Relevant
paragraphs no. 12, 13 and 14 are quoted
herein below:
12 All. Indrajeet Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
483

"12.It is plain from a bare
reading of the non-obstante clause in the
Section and sub-section (2) thereof that the
power to grant bail to a person accused of
having committed offence under the NDPS
Act is not only subject to the limitations
imposed under Section 439 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, it is also subject
to the restrictions placed by sub-clause (b)
of subsection (1) of Section 37 of the NDPS
Act. Apart from 8 giving an opportunity to
the Public Prosecutor to oppose the
application for such release, the other twin
conditions viz; (i) the satisfaction of the
Court that there are reasonable grounds for
believing that the accused is not guilty of
the alleged offence; and (ii) that he is not
likely to commit any offence while on bail,
have to be satisfied. It is manifest that the
conditions
are
cumulative
and
not
alternative. The satisfaction contemplated
regarding the accused being not guilty, has
to be based on "reasonable grounds".

13. The expression `reasonable
grounds' has not been defined in the said
Act but means something more than prima
facie grounds. It connotes substantial
probable causes for believing that the
accused is not guilty of the offence he is
charged
with.
The
reasonable
belief
contemplated in turn points to existence of
such facts and circumstances as are
sufficient
in
themselves
to
justify
satisfaction that the accused is not guilty of
the alleged offence. [Vide Union of India
Vs. Shiv Shanker Kesari, 2007(7) SCC 798]
Thus, recording of satisfaction on both the
aspects, noted above, is sine qua non for
granting of bail under the NDPS Act.

We may, however, hasten to add
that while considering an application for
bail with reference to Section 37 of the
NDPS Act, the Court is not called upon to
record a finding of 'not guilty'. At this
stage, it is neither necessary nor desirable
to weigh the evidence meticulously to
arrive at a positive finding as to whether or
not the accused has committed offence
under the NDPS Act. What is to be seen is
whether there is reasonable ground for
believing that the accused is not guilty of
the offence(s) he is charged with and
further that he is not likely to commit an
offence under the said Act while on bail.
The satisfaction of the Court about the
existence of the said twin conditions is for a
limited purpose and is confined to the
question of releasing the accused on bail."

8. In the recent judgment of Apex
Court in case of State of Kerala Vs.
Rajesh; AIR 2020 SC 721, Hon'ble Apex
Court again considered the scope of
Section 37 of N.D.P.S Act as under:

"20. The scheme of Section 37
reveals that the exercise of power to grant
bail is not only subject to the limitations
contained under Section 439 of the CrPC,
but is also subject to the limitation placed
by Section 37 which commences with nonobstante clause. The operative part of the
said section is in the negative form
prescribing the enlargement of bail to any
person accused of commission of an
offence
under
the
Act,
unless
twin
conditions are satisfied. The first condition
is that the prosecution must be given an
opportunity to oppose the application; and
the second, is that the Court must be
satisfied that there are reasonable grounds
for believing that he is not guilty of such
offence. If either of these two conditions is
not satisfied, the ban for granting bail
operates.

21. The expression "reasonable
grounds" means something more than
prima facie grounds. It contemplates
substantial probable causes for believing
that the accused is not guilty of the alleged
484 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
offence.
The
reasonable
belief
contemplated in the provision requires
existence of such facts and circumstances
as are sufficient in themselves to justify
satisfaction that the accused is not guilty of
the alleged offence. In the case on hand,
the High Court seems to have completely
overlooked the underlying object of Section
37 that in 11 addition to the limitations
provided under the CrPC, or any other law
for the time being in force, regulating the
grant of bail, its liberal approach in the
matter of bail under the NDPS Act is
indeed uncalled for."

9. The Apex Court in Union of India
vs Prateek Shukla, AIR, 2021 SC 1509
has
held
that merely
recording
the
submissions of the parties does not amount
to an indication of a judicial or, for that
matter, a judicious application of mind. The
provisions of Section 37 of the N.D.P.S.
Act provide the legal norms which have to
be applied in determining whether a case
for grant of bail has been made out. The
relevant paragraph nos. 11,12 and 13 of the
said judgment are reproduced herein under
:

"11. Ex facie, there has been no
application of mind by the High Court to
the rival submissions and, particularly, to
the seriousness of the allegations involving
an offence punishable under the provisions
of the NDPS Act. Merely recording the
submissions of the parties does not amount
to an indication of a judicial or, for that
matter, a judicious application of mind by
the Single Judge of the High Court to the
basic question as to whether bail should be
granted. The provisions of Section 37 of the
NDPS Act provide the legal norms which
have to be applied in determining whether
a case for grant of bail has been made out.
There has been a serious infraction by the
High Court of its duty to apply the law. The
order granting bail is innocent of an
awareness of the legal principles involved
in determining whether bail should be
granted to a person accused of an offence
under the NDPS Act. The contention of the
respondent that he had resigned from the
Company,
Altruist
Chemicals
Private
Limited, must be assessed with reference to
the allegations in the criminal complaint
which has been filed in the Court of the
District and Sessions Judge. Gautam Budh
Nagar (Annexure P-6).

The
relevant
part
of
the
complaint reads as follows:

"18. That during investigation of
the case, letter dated 27.11.2018 was sent
to the Registrar of Companies for providing
details of the Directors etc of the company
in question i.e. U/s Altruist Chemicals Pvt
Ltd and vide its report dated 03.12.2018
Registrar of Companies provided the said
information and from the perusal of said
information/documents, it reveals
that
accused Prateek Shukla and Bismillah
Khan are the Directors.

Accused Himanshu Rana was
also Director but he has resigned from the
directorship. From the perusal of the
documents, it also reveals that they had
registered the company, i.e., Altruist
Chemical Pvt. Ltd. At 001, Block AbSector-45, Noida, which is a residential
area and accused persons also obtained
Unique Registration No. from the NCB on
the above said premises."

12. We may also note at this stage
the contention of the respondent in the
application for bail which was filed before
the High Court (Annexure P-8) that he had
transferred 99% of his shareholding in the
Company to Bismilla Khan Ahmadzai.
Bismilla
Khan
Ahmadzai,
as
the
prosecution alleges at this stage, is an
12 All. Indrajeet Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
485
Afghan national. The application for bail
which had been filed before the High Court
as well as the counter affidavit which has
been filed in the present proceedings
suppress more than what they disclose. Be
that as it may, we are of the view that the
High Court was clearly not justified in
granting bail and the reasons provided by
the High Court, as we have already
indicated above, do not reflect application
of mind to the seriousness of the offence
which is involved. Indicating that the
respondent as an educated person with a
Bachelor of Technology "may not commit
any
offence"
is
an
extraneous
circumstances which ought not to have
weighed with the High Court in the grant of
bail for an offence under the NDPS Act.

13. For the above reasons, we are
of the view that the High Court has misapplied the law to the facts in arriving at a
decision for the grant of bail to the
respondent. We accordingly allow the
appeal and set aside the impugned
judgment and order of the High Court
dated 7 May 2019. As a consequence, the
bail which has been granted by the High
Court to the respondent shall stand
cancelled. The respondent shall surrender
forthwith as a result of the cancellation of
bail by the present order of this Court."

10. No material has been brought on
record by the applicant to show that there
was any prior ill-will or enmity of the
applicant
with
the
police
personnel
concerned. Illicit trafficking is an organized
crime and done adopting different modus
operandi by the group of persons with their
different role. So far as plea of false
implication is concerned, in my view, it is
stereo typed defense raised in every case,
where the accused are found in the
possession
of
contraband.
Experience
shows that such statements are made
almost in every case, therefore, such kind
of plea of false implication without any
basis is not liable to be accepted at this
stage.

11. If the Court laid the emphasis
upon the witnesses then common people do
not dare to become witness against the
criminals, as they have a lot of financial
and political patronage available to them as
well as muscle power. Public witnesses
against the criminals and drug traffickers
are always in threat, therefore police
personnel cannot be seen within eye of
suspicion particularly when there is huge
recovery of contraband and there is no prior
will of police personnel with the accused
and they are discharging their official duty.
Huge amount of 'Ganza', 151.450 kgs
cannot be planted.

12. In the light of analysis of the case
as mentioned above and considering the
recovery of huge quantity of Ganja as
mentioned above, coupled with the fact that
applicant was apprehended at the spot and
was having conscious and constructive
possession over the recovered Ganja, I do
not find any reasonable ground in terms of
Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act to hold that
applicant is not guilty of an offence and he
is not likely to commit any offence while
on bail.

13. It is made clear that this finding is
for a limited purpose and is confined to the
question of releasing the accused applicant
on bail only. The trial court shall be
absolutely free to arrive at its independent
conclusions on the basis of evidence led
unaffected by anything said in this order.

14. In view of the facts and
circumstances of the case and on account of
the reasons mentioned above, I do not find
486 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
any good ground for enlarging the applicant
on bail at this stage.

15. The bail application of the
applicant is, accordingly, rejected.
----------
(2022) 12 ILRA 486
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.11.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE GAJENDRA KUMAR, J.

Criminal Misc. Ist Bail Application No. 51543 of
2022

Ramvilash @ Chhottan @ Chhottan Kori
 ....Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Ramesh Prasad

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

(A) Criminal Law - Bail - Indian Penal
Code, 1860 - Sections 363, 366, 504, 506 ,
The Code of criminal procedure, 1973 -
Section 161, 164 , The Protection of
Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 -
Section 7/8 , Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 -
section 5/7 .

Maternal uncle of informant (accusedapplicant) - enticed away minor daughter
of informant - no medical evidence to
support
-
statements
of
prosecutrix
recorded under Section 161 and 164
Cr.P.C.
-
prosecutrix
and
applicant
solemnized marriage - living together as
husband & wife. (Para -12 )

HELD:-Victim herself left her house and went to
the applicant. She was not enticed away by him.
Applicant made out a case for bail. (Para -
11,12)
Bail application allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

S. Varadarajan Vs St. of Madras, 1965 AIR (SC)
942

(Delivered by Hon'ble Gajendra Kumar, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for applicant,
learned A.G.A. for State and learned counsel
for the State-respondents and perused the
material on record.

2. Instant application for bail has been
filed by applicant-Ramvilash @ Chhottan @
Chhottan Kori supported by an affidavit of the
prosecutorix seeking his enlargement on bail
in Case Crime No.65 of 2020 under Sections
363, 366, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 7/8
POCSO Act, Police Station- Kotwali Dehat,
District-Banda, during the pendency of trial.

3. Record shows that in respect of an
incident, which is alleged to have occurred on
09.03.2020, an F.I.R. dated 20.03.2020 was
lodged by first informant Premchand (father of
prosecutrix) and was registered as Case Crime
No.65 of 2020 under 363, 366, 504, 506 I.P.C.
and Section 7/8 POCSO Act, Police Station-
Kotwali Dehat, District-Banda.

4. In brief, as per prosecution story as
unfolded in the F.I.R., it is alleged that
maternal uncle of the informant i.e. accusedapplicant (Ramvilash @ Chhottan @ Chhottan
Kori) enticed away the minor daughter of the
informant, aged about 16 years on 09.03.2020
and she (prosecutorix) had taken away some
jewellary, money etc. along with her.

5. After registration of the aforesaid
F.I.R., Investigating Officer proceeded with
statutory investigation of afore-mentioned
case crime number in terms of Chapter XII