# Rahul Kumar Yadav / (In Jail) v. State of U.P - **Citation:** (2006) 2 ILRA 924 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2003-05-06 - **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1859 of 2006 - **Bench:** G.P. Srivastava - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rahul-kumar-yadav-in-jail-v-state-of-u-p-40683 - **Pages:** 2 ## Headnote N.D.P.S. Act-Section 37-Bail applicationarrest of applicant with 800 gms. Diazepam tablets-in four packs recovered-chemical report shows-weight of 20 tablets as 100 mg.-accordingly 4000 tablets will come 800 gms.-nothing to infer-after released on bail such crime will not be repeated-held-No ground for bail. Held: Para 5 In the instant case section 37 N.D.P.S. Act comes into play. There is nothing to presume that the accused has committed no offence. Moreover there is nothing to infer that if the applicant is released on bail he will not repeat the crime. There is no ground for bail. The bail application is rejected. ## Text 924 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006 Court did not doubt that Article 311 will apply and that the employee cannot be dismissed without giving him an opportunity of hearing. In that case, however, since show cause notice was given to the petitioner, the Supreme Court did not interfere. 13. The submission that Rule 18 was amended on 12.9.1989 and that under the un-amended Rule 18 the petitioner's services came to an end, after five years of his absence from 9.2.1986, ignores the fact that such termination of services will be violative of Article 14, and 311 (2) of Constitution of India. The continuous absence beyond five years amounts to misconduct. In law a person may explain even such circumstances which normally a person may not be realised. The case of a Japanese Soldier who went in hiding and came out after 18 years without having knowledge that the war have ended long ago is one of such example. A person may be mentally incapacitated or may be suffering from such ailment which may not allow him to apply or for extension of leave. In service matters there is nothing which happens automatically. Where an employer is required to give an opportunity to the person to explain the circumstances in which he remained absent, the period of absence is not material. 14. Now more than four years have passed since this Court directed the respondents, while quashing the orders dated 4.9.1998 to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, and to take appropriate decision in accordance with law. No such decision has been taken so far. Further the respondents did not avail the opportunity given by this Court all over again dated 6.5.2003, to consider petitioner's leave application, along with fitness certificate dated 5.1.1989. It will now be a futile exercise now to allow the respondents to hold a disciplinary enquiry after four and half years as the respondents have failed to avail the opportunity. 15. In view of the special facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service forthwith without any further delay. The entire absence shall be treated as spent on leave. The petitioner has not stated anywhere that he was not gainfully employed during the period of his absence and as such he will only be entitled to half of the back wages. The petitioner shall also be entitled cost of Rs.25,000/- from the respondents as costs of litigation. The order shall be complied with within six weeks of its communication to Respondent Nos. 1 & 2. --------- APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.05.2006 BEFORE THE HON'BLE G.P. SRIVASTAVA, J. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1859 of 2006 Rahul Kumar Yadav ...Applicant/Accused (In Jail) Versus State of U.P. ...Opposite Party Counsel for the Applicant: Sri R.K. Ojha Sri Virendra Srivastava Counsel for the Opposite Party: A.G.A. 2 All] Rahul Kumar Yadav V. State of U.P. 925 N.D.P.S. Act-Section 37-Bail applicationarrest of applicant with 800 gms. Diazepam tablets-in four packs recovered-chemical report shows-weight of 20 tablets as 100 mg.-accordingly 4000 tablets will come 800 gms.-nothing to infer-after released on bail such crime will not be repeated-held-No ground for bail. Held: Para 5 In the instant case section 37 N.D.P.S. Act comes into play. There is nothing to presume that the accused has committed no offence. Moreover there is nothing to infer that if the applicant is released on bail he will not repeat the crime. There is no ground for bail. The bail application is rejected. (Delivered by Hon'ble G.P. Srivastava, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. 2. According to the prosecution case on 25.12.05 the applicant was arrested and from his possession 800 gms. diazepam tablets, in all 4000 tablets, kept in four packs were recovered. The packets were kept in a white polythene bag which was held in the hand of the applicant. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the tablets are below the commercial quantity. He has argued that in the market diazepam tablets of only 2 mg., 5 mg. Are available. No tablet of 5 gm., 10 gm and 20 gm is available in the market. Besides that he has relied upon Vijay Kumar Yadav @ Sachin Vs. State of U.P. 2003 (1) U.P.Crl. R. 561 wherein it was held that the recovery of 5000 tablets of diazepam which is less than the commercial quantity as mentioned in Government Notification. 4. In the instant case there is a chemical report from Vidhi Vigyan Prayogshala (Annexure-1 to the counter affidavit) which shows that the weight of 20 tablets of diazepam was 100 mg. Therefore the weight of 4000 tablets will come to 800 gms. which is above the commercial quantity, as the commercial quantity of diazepam is 500 gms. No such notification has been produced before me as mentioned in the above judgment. In the said judgment the weight of the each tablets recovered has not been mentioned. 5. In the instant case section 37 N.D.P.S. Act comes into play. There is nothing to presume that the accused has committed no offence. Moreover there is nothing to infer that if the applicant is released on bail he will not repeat the crime. There is no ground for bail. The bail application is rejected. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 4.4.2006 BEFORE THE HON'BLE G.P. SRIVASTAVA, J. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.4649 of 2006 Poornima & another...Applicants (In Jail) Versus State of U.P. ...Opposite Party With Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.2752 of 2006, Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.1901 of 2006, Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.3340 of 2006, Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.3886 of 2006, Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.2683 of 2006, Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 4946 of 2006.