# Neeraj Kumar Katiyar v. Union Of India

- **Citation:** (2016) 7 ILRA 202
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2016-07-05
- **Bench:** Harsh Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/neeraj-kumar-katiyar-v-union-of-india-44012
- **Pages:** 4

## Text

202 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

37. In this view of the matter, where the question is of enforcing the fundamental rights
guaranteed to the citizens vis-a-vis the claim of the petitioner, the Block Pramukh, who is an
undertrial prisoner facing trial of heinous crime of murder, we are of the considered opinion that no
mandamus can be granted to the petitioner as prayed for to perform his duties as Block Pramukh
particularly when he is detained in prison under a valid judicial process and the Act 1961 contains a
specific provision under Section 9A for making an alternative arrangement under such
circumstances.

38. The appropriate course in case of the petitioner, the undertrail prisoner for offences
u/s147/148/149/302 r/w 34 IPC, is to seek a direction for the Sessions Court concerned that the
case be fast tracked. The petitioner being an undertrial prisoner cannot be permitted by the court to
participate in the deliberations of the meetings of Kshettra Panchayat in the background of what has
been observed above. On being tried, if the petitioner is convicted, he becomes disqualified for
continuing as a Block Pramukh u/s 13 of Act 1961. If, he is acquitted, he is entitled to continue as
Block Pramukh. Though this may sound cumbersome, that apparently is what the Constitution and
the Statute intends.

39. In view of these circumstances, we do not find this case to be a case for exercise of
discretionary jurisdiction as no prejudice would be caused either to the functioning of the Kshetra
Panchayat nor it would impede the same any way. In the result, for the foregoing reasons all the
contentions urged by the petitioner in support of his claim fail.

40. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
----------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.07.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE HARSH KUMAR, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.- 24435 Of 2014

Neeraj Kumar Katiyar ...Applicant
Versus
Union Of India ...Opposite Party

Counsel for Applicant:
Chandrakesh Mishra, Daya Shankar Mishra

Counsel for Opposite Party:
Sanjay Kumar Singh, Spp, A.G.A.

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant Neeraj Kumar Katiyar involved in
Criminal Case No.226 of 2013, under Sections 8/20/23 of NDPS Act, D.R.I, District Varanasi.
7 All. Neeraj Kumar Katiyar Vs Union Of India

203
Counsel for the applicant content that the applicant has been falsely implicated; that allegedly recovered
quantity of Charas has not been recovered from the applicant; that the entire story mentioned in memo of
recovery and arrest is false and concocted; that the alleged recovery of contraband from the Car is and the
Car does not belong to the applicant; that there there is no independent witness of alleged recovery; that the
compliance of provisions of Sections 42, 50 , 52 and 57 of NDPS Act has not been made in view of law laid
down in State of Rajasthan Vs. Parmanand, AIR (SC)-2014-1384.

Counsel for Customs and Central Excise vehemently opposed the prayer of bail and contended that huge
commercial quantity of Charas weighing 46.5 kg. has been recovered from the vehicle being driven by the
applicant; that the Narcotic drugs were being smuggled from neighbouring country Nepal, by the applicant in
a very clever and planned manner by making a cavity within the bonut and rear portion of the old car.

Court after perusing the records and considering the complicity of offence, severity of punishment as well as
totality of facts and circumstances, without commenting on the merits of the case, did not find it as a fit case
for bail.

The bail application of applicant Neeraj Kumar Katiyar is liable to be rejected.

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

1. Heard Shri Daya Shankar Mishra learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Sanjay Kumar
Singh, Special Public Prosecutor (Narcotics) on behalf of opposite party, the Union of India.

2. The bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant Neeraj Kumar Katiyar
involved in Criminal Case No.226 of 2013, under Sections 8/20/23 of NDPS Act, D.R.I, District
Varanasi.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the applicant has been falsely
implicated; that allegedly recovered quantity of Charas has not been recovered from the applicant;
that the entire story mentioned in memo of recovery and arrest is false and concocted; that the
alleged recovery of contraband from the Car is and the Car does not belong to the applicant; that
there there is no independent witness of alleged recovery; that the compliance of provisions of
Sections 42, 50 , 52 and 57 of NDPS Act has not been made in view of law laid down in State of
Rajasthan Vs. Parmanand, AIR (SC)-2014-1384; M. Prabhulal Vs. The Assistant Director,
Directorate of Revenue Intelligence [2003(47) ACC 1151]; and Dilip Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh,
AIR(SC)-2007-369; that out of the allegedly recovered material, three samples are alleged to have
been prepared which is against the prescribed procedure of preparing two samples and so the entire
proceedings are wrong and illegal; that the car being driven by the applicant is alleged to have been
stopped at about 12.00 in noon on 24.4.2013 and the search is alleged to have been made at a
distant place, at the office at Nadesar, Varanasi; that due notice of search before Gazetted Officer
was not given to the two accused separately and giving the joint notice to them is wrong and
illegal; that the search of applicant and the vehicle before the Gazetted Officer who was
accompanying the raiding party is wrong and illegal and ought to have been made before the
nearest Magistrate; that recovery of huge quantity has been shown in order to show good work and
the applicant was arrested near hotel India when after meeting his father, a railway employee at
204 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

Allahabad, he was going to have Darshan of Vishwanath Baba; that the confessional statement of
applicant recorded in police custody is not admissible in evidence; that the applicant is in custody
since 24.4.2013 and the trial is not proceeding in accordance with law rather progress of trial is
very slow; that as per provisions of Section 36 of NDPS Act the trial must be conducted before
special court but no special court was constituted and so the entire proceedings of trial before
additional sessions judge are liable to be quashed; that the copy of the order sheet filed by opposite
party along with Supplementary Counter Affidavit, shows that the prosecution is not taking due
interest in early disposal of the trial; that the applicant has no criminal history; that the applicant
undertakes that he will not make misuse the liberty of bail; that the applicant is in custody since
24.4.2013.

4. Per contra learned counsel for Customs and Central Excise vehemently opposed the
prayer of bail and contended that huge commercial quantity of Charas weighing 46.5 kg. has been
recovered from the vehicle being driven by the applicant; that the Narcotic drugs were being
smuggled from neighbouring country Nepal, by the applicant in a very clever and planned manner
by making a cavity within the bonut and rear portion of the old car; that the case laws relied on
behalf of applicant are not applicable to the facts of the case and moreover since the compliance of
all the provisions has been made the correctness of the same is to be considered at the time of
disposal of trial after evidence; that it is wrong to say that compliance of Sections 42, 50, 52 or 57
of the NDPS Act has not been made; that it is wrong to say that joint notice was served on both the
accused which does not comply with provisions of Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act rather separate
notices of search were not served on the two accused; that page nos.24 and 25 of the counter
affidavit clearly show that separate notices of search were served on each of the two accused; that it
is wrong to say that search before the gazetted officer accompanying the squad was not proper or
ought to have been made before some Judicial Magistrate; that it is pertinent to mention that on
request of accused, for search of some secured place, instead at the place of arrest on Gazipur -
Vanarasi Road, on which the applicant driven the Car to nearest office; that it is wrong to say that
making of search at some distance was wrong or improper and there is no allegation of any
meanwhile manipulation or tampering with the goods recovered; that the arguments that three
samples were taken in contravention of rules are absolutely wrong and baseless, rather same were
taken in accordance with rules; that in any case by taking 3 samples of recovered goods in
accordance with the rules the applicant has not been affected adversely; that in the case of Vijay
Singh Chandubha Jadeja vs. State of Gujarat, (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 497 it has been held that the
issues as raised by the applicant can only be raised at the time of trial; that it is wrong to say that
trial is being conducted before an incompetent court and the applicant has not raised any such plea
before the trial court; that after framing of charges the trial has commenced and is in progress; that
statement of P.W.-1 was recorded on 23.8.2014 and despite part cross examination on 6 dates
2.5.2015, 8.5.2015, 2.6.2015, 3.7.2015 and 22.7.2015, the accused has not concluded the cross
examination with P.W.-1 as yet after lapse of about 2 years; that the accused himself is delaying the
progress of trial and whenever the prosecution witness appears before the court either the applicant
moves adjournment application with the plea of his counsel being engaged in some other case in
some other court or get the witness cross examined in part to some short extent with oral request by
counsel of being busy elsewhere; that despite specific orders of the court on applicant's
7 All. Akhil Bhartiya Manav Kalyan Evam Samajothhan & Anr. Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.

205
adjournment application, granting adjournment on 31.8.2015 for completing the cross examination
on next date 19.9.2015, the accused again moved adjournment application on 19.9.2015; that the
prosecution witness has returned several times without further cross examination during the period
of last 2 years and if on any date the P.W.-1 could not appear for further cross examination, the
prosecution cannot be blamed for the slow progress of trial; that the accused himself is obstructing
and delaying the progress of trial in order to make a ground for bail; that the bail application is not
liable to be allowed in view of provisions of Section 37 of NDPS Act; that there is nothing to show
that after release on bail the applicant will not again get involved in similar offences; that if the
applicant is released on bail he will delay and defraud the trial and will abscond to Nepal or to
elsewhere and continue to commit similar offences.

5. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, perusal of record and considering the
complicity of offence, severity of punishment as well as totality of facts and circumstances, without
commenting on the merits of the case, I do not find it a fit case for bail. The bail application of
applicant Neeraj Kumar Katiyar is liable to be rejected.

6. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected.
----------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.07.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ARUN TANDON, J.
THE HON'BLE MRS. SUNITA AGARWAL, J.

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No.- 29592 Of 2016
&
Writ C No.- 49534 Of 2015

Akhil Bhartiya Manav Kalyan Evam Samajothhan & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for Petitioners:
Amar Nath Singh

Counsel for Respondents:
C.S.C., A.N. Singh, A.S.G.I., Amit Misra, Anjali Upadhya, B.B. Jauhari, Shivam Yadav

Present two Public Interest Litigations (PILs) have been filed before this Court raising serious concern in the
matter of appointment and continuance of officers including the highest officer namely Chief Executive Officer
(CEO) in three Industrial Development Authorities created around the National Capital Region (NCR) namely
NOIDA, Greater NOIDA and Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority.
Court took a judicial notice of the fact that during all this period, serious scams in respect of allotment of land
and wrongful utilization of the property put in the hands of above named Development Authorities have come