# Rishipal Singh (In Jail) v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2020) 9 ILRA 156
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-08-27
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 18920 of 2020
- **Bench:** Samit Goptal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rishipal-singh-in-jail-v-state-of-u-p-45924
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Criminal Law -Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973- Section 439 (1)- Bail- Accused /
applicant
already
granted
bail
while
deceased was injured- No distinction in
injuries at both stages- The applicants are
not named in the first information report-
After death of the deceased the present
case was converted into one from an
offence under Section 307 IPC to an
offence under Section 302 IPC along with
other Section. While the matter was for
offence
under
Section
307
IPC
the
applicant applied for bail before the court
below which was allowed-In so far as the
applicant is concerned, he was granted
bail by Sessions Judge in the present
matter itself and the injuries received by
the deceased at the time of grant of bail to
him were the same at the time of his
death. There was no distinction in so far
as the prosecution case and the evidence
is concerned at the time of grant of bail to
the applicant by the Sessions Judge.

The accused / applicant was already granted
bail by the court below for the offence u/s 307
of the IPC and the nature of injuries remained
the same after the case was converted u/s 302
IPC, hence in the facts of the case the applicant
has made out a case for the grant of bail.

Bail Application allowed. (Para 14) (E-3)

Case law relied upon/ Discussed: -

## Text

156 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2020)09ILR A156
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.08.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAMIT GOPTAL, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 18920 of 2020
with
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 17051 of 2020

Rishipal Singh ...Applicant(In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri R.P.S. Chauhan

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
G.A., Sri D.P.S. Chauhan, Sri Dharmendra
Pratap Singh Chauhan, Sri Surya Bhan
Singh, Sri Shiv Nath Singh

Criminal Law -Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973- Section 439 (1)- Bail- Accused /
applicant
already
granted
bail
while
deceased was injured- No distinction in
injuries at both stages- The applicants are
not named in the first information report-
After death of the deceased the present
case was converted into one from an
offence under Section 307 IPC to an
offence under Section 302 IPC along with
other Section. While the matter was for
offence
under
Section
307
IPC
the
applicant applied for bail before the court
below which was allowed-In so far as the
applicant is concerned, he was granted
bail by Sessions Judge in the present
matter itself and the injuries received by
the deceased at the time of grant of bail to
him were the same at the time of his
death. There was no distinction in so far
as the prosecution case and the evidence
is concerned at the time of grant of bail to
the applicant by the Sessions Judge.

The accused / applicant was already granted
bail by the court below for the offence u/s 307
of the IPC and the nature of injuries remained
the same after the case was converted u/s 302
IPC, hence in the facts of the case the applicant
has made out a case for the grant of bail.

Bail Application allowed. (Para 14) (E-3)

Case law relied upon/ Discussed: -

1. Dataram Singh Vs St. of U.P., (2018) 3 SCC 22

(Delivered by Hon'ble Samit Gopal, J.)

1. Heard Sri R.P.S. Chauhan, learned
counsel for the applicants in both the bail
applications who is present in Court, Sri
Shiv Nath Singh, learned Senior counsel
assisted by Sri Surya Bhan Singh, learned
counsel on behalf of the first informant
through video conferencing and Sri I.P.S.
Rathore, learned AGA for the State who is
also present in Court and perused the
material on record.

2. These bail application under Section
439 of Code of Criminal Procedure have been
filed by the applicants Rishipal Singh and
Abhishek Alias Fota, seeking enlargement on
bail during trial in connection with Case Crime
No. 399 of 2019, under Sections 302, 120B IPC
registered at P.S. Chhajlet, District Moradabad.

3. Vide order dated 26.08.2020 passed by
this Court, office was directed to trace out a
supplementary affidavit sent by the learned
counsel for the applicants through e-mail to the
nominated e-mail ID of the office of this Court
as the same was not on record. As per office
report dated 27.08.2020 a supplementary
affidavit has been traced out and the same is
placed on record which is bearing no. 3 of
2020. The compliance of the order dated
26.08.2020 has thus been done by the office.

4. Since both the bail applications
relate to the same case crime number and
9 All. Rishipal Singh Vs. State of U.P.
157
the applicants herein are co-accused in the
same, the same are being heard together are
being decided by a common order. Learned
Senior counsel appearing for the first
informant and the learned AGA have no
objection to the same.

5. Sri R.P.S. Chauhan, learned
counsel for the applicant states that he shall
be referring to the paper book of bail
application of Rishipal Singh while arguing
the matter.

6. Sri R.P.S. Chauhan, learned
counsel for the applicants argued that the
occurrence in the present matter took place
on 01.11.2019 at about 9.15 a.m. for which
a first information report was lodged on
02.11.2019 at about 22.12 hours by Sharad
Kumar son of the deceased which was
registered under Section 307 IPC against
unknown persons. Version as stated in the
first
information
report
is
that
of
01.11.2019 at about 9.15 a.m. the father of
the first informant namely Suraj Singh
along with the wife of the first informant
namely Smt. Poonam Rani who is a teacher
in a primary school were going on
motorcycle driven by Suraj Singh for
dropping Smt. Poonam Rani to the school
and when they reached somewhere between
Chhajjupura and Pachokara a Scorpio
vehicle came from the front and hit them as
a result of which both the persons fell
down. The vehicle was occupied by 3-4
unknown persons who were armed with
lathi, danda and sariya who with an
intention to kill, started assaulting his father
on which his wife raised a shout whereon
one person ran to assault his wife and on
seeing persons coming from the nearby
fields who were working their all the
persons fled away in the said vehicle.
Father of the first informant was left in a
bad condition at the said place who as of
know is in AIIMS Delhi and his treatment
is going on but his condition is very
critical. It is thus, stated in the first
information report that the family members
of the first informant are facing threat of
their lives from the unknown assailants. It
is thus, stated in the end that a report
against the said unknown assailants be
registered and legal action be initiated.

7. It is argued that the first informant
is not an eye witness of the incident.

8. Learned counsel has then placed
the injury report of the injured Suraj Singh
which is annexure 2 to the affidavit
prepared while he was in an injured
condition and while placing the said injury
report has argued that the injury 4 being a
lacerated wound appears to be a fatal injury
as the other 5 injuries cannot in any manner
be construed to be fatal at all. Further
learned counsel has then placed another
injury report of Suraj Singh which along
with other documents is also annexed as
annexure 2 particularly at page 50 of the
paper book and has argued that the contents
in the same would go to show that the
present case was reported as a case of
accident and the injured was hit by four
wheeler as has been noted therein. He has
placed the injuries which have been gone
through. However, the CT scan report of
the head has been placed which is at page
52 of the paper book in which Doctor has
found fracture of the temporal bone and
facial bones. Learned counsel has then
drawn the attention of the Court to the site
plan which is annexed as annexure 3 and
has proceeded to argued that the place of
occurrence has been shown therein which
is a road which is surrounded by
agricultural fields on both the sides.
Learned counsel has then placed before the
Court that Smt. Poonam Rani the wife of
158 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the first informant and the daughter in law
of Suraj Singh was a crucial witness of the
incident and the only person present at the
place of occurrence from the side of the
prosecution as per the first information
report. Her statement recorded under
Section 161 Cr.P.C, copy of which is
annexure amongst other statements as
annexure 4 particularly at page 68 which is
dated 06.11.2019 has been placed and it has
argued that she has also towed the same
version as that of the first information
report as stated that the present incident has
been committed by unknown persons. It is
further argued while placing the second
statement of Smt. Poonam Rani recorded
under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 07.11.2019
which is at page 69 of the paper book that it
is for the first time after recording of the
first statement on the very next day she
discloses the features of three persons by
stating her physical appearances. Even it is
argued that no one is named as an accused
therein. Learned counsel has then stated
and argued while placing reliance on
annexure
6
that
on 18.11.2019
the
Investigating Officer notes in CD No. 9 that
he meets the first informant at his house
and asks about the said incident on which
the first informant states that his wife Smt.
Poonam is a witness present at the place of
occurrence who has disclosed him that
Ranveer Singh and Yashveer Singh are the
eye witnesses of the incident. It is then
argued that immediately thereupon the
Investigating Officer interrogates Yashveer
Singh and Ranveer Singh on 18.11.2019
itself and their statements are also annexed
along with the said noting in the case diary
and are also annexure 6 who claimed
themselves to be eye witnesses of the
incident and have for the first time
disclosed the name of the applicants
Rishipal Singh, Abhishek @ Fota and one
other person by describing him as a person
of grey complexion as accused. While
criticising the evidence of Yashveer Singh
and Ranveer Singh learned counsel for the
applicants states that Yashveer Singh is a
family member of the first informant and
Ranveer Singh is the nephew of the
deceased. Learned counsel for the applicant
then placed before the court CD No. 25
dated 15.01.2020 which is annexed as
annexure 7 and states that then the names
of two persons namely Mitendra Singh and
Virendra Singh s/o Jagdish Singh have
been introduced by the first informant on
being asked about eye witnesses of the
incident. Immediately thereupon on the
same day i.e., 15.01.2020 Virendra Singh
son of Jagdish Singh and Mitendra Singh
are also interrogated under Section 161
Cr.P.C. who disclose the name of three
persons as accused in the present matter
and claim themselves to be eye witnesses.
The names of the said three persons are
Rishipal Singh, Abhishek @ Fota and
Sachin Kumar. Learned counsel has then
placed annexure 8 to the affidavit being CD
No. 41 dated 08.03.2020 and has stated that
the Investigating Officer states therein that
the first informant has come to the police
station and has stated that one Virendra
Singh son of Jaiveer Singh went to him and
stated that he wants to tell something about
the incident on which he stated that the
same may be disclosed to the SHO at the
police station and both the persons reach
the police station and inform the same to
the SHO after which the statement of
Virendra Singh son of Jaiveer Singh was
recorded on 08.03.2020. It is then stated
that Virendra Singh son of Jaiveer Singh
discloses that two persons are involved in
the present incident in which one is
Rishipal singh who is alleged to be armed
with danda and one other unknown person
was alleged to be armed with rod and
nephew of Rishipal who is called Fota was
9 All. Rishipal Singh Vs. State of U.P.
159
shouting from the vehicle to speed up as
someone is coming and till the time they
would reach the place of occurrence the
accused fled away. He then states that
previously he did not disclose anything to
anyone as the matter was of his village but
now since Suraj Singh has died, his
conscience has knocked now and he is
telling the truth whatever he saw. Learned
counsel then stated that on 22.01.2020 an
alleged recovery was affected wherein the
police has shown the recovery of a danda
and an iron rod on the pointing out of
Abhishek @ Fota from a place at the back
of the house of Rishipal Singh which
though have been shown to be recovered,
are not incriminating in any manner. It is
further argued that the Suraj Singh died on
10.02.2020 at 10.40 a.m. and after his death
the present case was converted into one
from an offence under Section 307 IPC to
an offence under Secction 302 IPC along
with other Section. It is further argued that
while the matter was for offence under
Section 307 IPC Rishipal Singh applied for
bail before the court below through
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 399 of
2020 (Rishipal Singh Vs State of U.P.)
which was allowed vide order dated
28.01.2020 passed by the Sessions Judge
Muradabad the copy of which is annexure
10 to the affidavit. It is argued that in so far
as Rishipal Singh is concerned he was
granted bail on 28.01.2020 by the court
below on the same material as was
collected except for the statement of
Birendra Singh s/o Jaiveer Singh who had
volunteered to disclose certain facts to the
first informant and was brought by the first
informant to the police station and the other
event of the death of Suraj Singh but the
evidence and the injuries as received by
Suraj Singh remained the same from
28.01.2020 i.e., the date of his being
granted bail, to 10.02.2020 i.e., the death of
Suraj Singh. It is thus argued that the
applicants have been falsely implicated
without any reliable and cogent evidence
on record. It is next argued that the
prosecution has not come out with any
motive for the applicants to commit the
murder. The presence of the alleged eye
witnesses apart from Smt. Poonam Rani
has been challenged and her disclosing the
name of Ranveer Singh and Yashveer Singh
at a belated stage is argued to be a falsity.
While placing the criminal history of
Rishipal Singh, learned counsel for the
applicant has placed before the Court para
2 of the supplementary affidavit and has
stated that he has been reported to be
involved in six cases. It is argued that the
explanation of all the six cases being given
in para 3 to 7 of the supplementary
affidavit. In the first and the second case,
being Case Crime No. 186 of 2019 and 147
of 2015, the said cases have been wrongly
shown against the applicant Rishipal Singh
as he was never an accused in the matter
and was never ever prosecuted therein. In
the third case being Case Crime No. 281 of
1996, under Section 25 Arms Act, as per
the instruction of the counsel and the
averments in para 4 the applicant was
granted bail by the court below. In the
fourth case being Case Crime No. 212 of
2019, under Section 308, 324, 325, 504 IPC
the year has been wrongly reported which
should have been 2003 and in the same the
applicant
Rishipal
Singh
has
been
acquitted. The explanation is tendered in
para 5 of the supplementary affidavit.
Further the fifth case being Case Crime No.
341 of 1986, under Section 302, 201 IPC is
one in which the applicant Rishipal Singh
has been acquitted of the charges as
mentioned in para 6 of the supplementary
affidavit. In the last case as reported being
Case Crime No. 272 of 1996, under
Sections 395, 397, 412 IPC it is averred
160 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
that the applicant Rishipal Singh was never
an accused in the same but was only called
and put up for identification and even
therein he was not identified as an accused
and as such he has not been an accused in
the said matter. A part from the said six
case one more case has been disclosed and
explained in para 8 of the supplementary
affidavit being Case Crime No. 289 of
2015, under Sections 498A, 323, 504 IPC
and 3⁄4 Dowry Prohibition Act, which has
been explained in the same para as has
been lodged by the daughter-in-law of
Rishipal Singh pertaining to a marital
dispute between her and her husband. It is
thus stated that the applicant has clean
antecedents as of know. It is further stated
that
the
applicant
is
in
jail
since
12.03.2020.

9. Sri R.P.S. Chauhan, learned
counsel for the applicant while placing the
arguments in connected matter of Abhishek
Singh @ Fota has adopted all the
arguments as placed in the bail application
of Rishipal Singh but has clarified that he
has no criminal history as has been alleged
in para 43 of the affidavit in support of the
bail application. It has been stated that he is
in jail since 23.01.2020.

10. It has been assured on behalf of
the applicants that they are ready to
cooperate with the process of law and shall
faithfully make themselves available before
the court whenever required. There is no
likelihood of early conclusion of trial and
hence, the applicants may be released on
bail during pendency of trial.

11. Per contra, Sri Shiv Nath Singh,
learned Senior counsel has argued that
naming the accused in the first information
report is not important at all specially
looking to the nature of the present
incident. It is argued that there has been a
recovery on the pointing out of Abhishek
@ Fota for which the recovery memo is
annexed and was even placed by the
learned counsel for the applicant.

12. Learned Senior counsel has placed
reliance upon the statement of Sunil Saini,
Yashveer
Singh,
Ranveer
Singh
and
Virendra Singh son of Jaiveer Singh,
annexed specifically and more particularly
at pages 71, 91, 92 and 102 of the paper
book of the bail application of Rishipal
singh and has proceeded to argue that the
said witnesses have specifically claimed
themselves to be eye witnesses and have
named both the accused persons. It is
argued that the presence of the said persons
at the place of occurrence cannot be
doubted and even from the version as given
by them of the incident goes to corroborate
the version of the prosecution in full
thereby leaving no doubt of their presence
at the place of occurrence. In so far as
Rishipal Singh is concerned the learned
Senior counsel has stated that previously he
was involved in six cases which shows that
he was a person of criminal bent of mind.

13. Learned AGA has opposed the
prayer for bail and has stated that he adopts
the arguments of learned counsel for the
first informant in full and only adds to it
that there is recovery of certain articles
from pointing out of Abhishek @ Fota
which would be a recovery under Section
27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

14. After perusing the records in the
light of the submissions made at the bar
and after taking an overall view of all the
facts and circumstances of this case, it is
clear that the applicants are not named in
the
first
information
report.
The
prosecution has come out initially with
9 All. Rishipal Singh Vs. State of U.P.
161
Smt. Poonam Rani as only the star witness
of the incident from 02.11.2018 till
18.11.2018 on which date subsequently
Ranveer Singh and Yashveer Singh were
introduced as eye witnesses and then later
on Ranveer Singh and Mitendra Singh were
further introduced as eye witnesses on
15.01.2020 and in the last on 08.03.2020
Virendra Singh son of Jaiveer Singh was
also introduced as an eye witnesses. In the
end prosecution stands as of know with five
eye witnesses of the incident though their
names were not disclosed in the FIR, the
two statements recorded under Section 161
Cr.P.C of Smt. Poonam Rani the sole
person accompanying the deceased on a
motorcycle. In so far as Rishipal Singh is
concerned he was granted bail by Sessions
Judge in the present matter itself and the
injuries received by Suraj Singh at the time
of grant of bail to him were the same at the
time of his death. There was no distinction
in so far as the prosecution case and the
evidence is concerned at the time of grant
of bail to Rishipal Singh by the Sessions
Judge expect for the injured Suraj Singh
being death and sudden appearance of
Virendra Singh son of Jaiveer Singh as an
eye witnesses on 08.03.2020 that to who
volunteered himself, reached the first
informant to disclose certain facts who was
then accompanied by the first informant to
the police station and was branded as an
eye witness.

15. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. :
(2018) 3 SCC 22 held that freedom of an
individual
can
not
be
curtailed
for
indefinite period, especially when his/her
guilt is yet to be proved. It has further been
held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
aforesaid judgment that a person is
believed to be innocent until found guilty. It
has been held as under:

"2. A fundamental postulate of
criminal jurisprudence is the presumption
of innocence, meaning thereby that a
person is believed to be innocent until
found guilty. However, there are instances
in our criminal law where a reverse onus
has been placed on an accused with regard
to some specific offences but that is another
matter and does not detract from the
fundamental postulate in respect of other
offences. Yet another important facet of our
criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of
bail is the general rule and putting a
person in jail or in a prison or in a
correction home (whichever expression one
may wish to use) is an exception.
Unfortunately,
some
of
these
basic
principles appear to have been lost sight of
with the result that more and more persons
are being incarcerated and for longer
periods. This does not do any good to our
criminal jurisprudence or to our society.

3. There is no doubt that the
grant or denial of bail is entirely the
discretion of the judge considering a case
but even so, the exercise of judicial
discretion has been circumscribed by a
large number of decisions rendered by this
Court and by every High Court in the
country. Yet, occasionally there is a
necessity to introspect whether denying bail
to an accused person is the right thing to
do on the facts and in the circumstances of
a case.

4. While so introspecting, among
the factors that need to be considered is
whether the accused was arrested during
investigations when that person perhaps
has the best opportunity to tamper with the
evidence or influence witnesses. If the
investigating officer does not find it
necessary to arrest an accused person
during investigations, a strong case should
be made out for placing that person in
judicial custody after a charge sheet is
162 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
filed. Similarly, it is important to ascertain
whether the accused was participating in
the investigations to the satisfaction of the
investigating
officer
and
was
not
absconding
or
not
appearing
when
required by the investigating officer. Surely,
if an accused is not hiding from the
investigating officer or is hiding due to
some genuine and expressed fear of being
victimised, it would be a factor that a judge
would need to consider in an appropriate
case. It is also necessary for the judge to
consider whether the accused is a first-time
offender or has been accused of other
offences and if so, the nature of such
offences and his or her general conduct.
The poverty or the deemed indigent status
of an accused is also an extremely
important factor and even Parliament has
taken notice of it by incorporating an
Explanation to Section 436 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973. An equally soft
approach to incarceration has been taken
by Parliament by inserting Section 436A in
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

5. To put it shortly, a humane
attitude is required to be adopted by a
judge, while dealing with an application for
remanding a suspect or an accused person
to police custody or judicial custody. There
are several reasons for this including
maintaining the dignity of an accused
person, howsoever poor that person might
be, the requirements of Article 21 of the
Constitution and the fact that there is
enormous overcrowding in prisons, leading
to social and other problems as noticed by
this Court in In Re-Inhuman Conditions in
1382 Prisons."

16. The nature of evidence, the period
of
detention
already
undergone,
the
unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial
and also the absence of any convincing
material to indicate the possibility of
tampering
with
the
evidence,
larger
mandate
of
the Article
21
of
the
Constitution of India and the dictum of
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dataram
Singh (supra), this Court is of the view that
the applicants may be enlarged on bail.

17. Let the applicants- Rishipal
Singh and Abhishek Alias Fota, be
released on bail in the aforesaid case crime
number on furnishing a personal bond and
two sureties each in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the court concerned with the
following conditions which are being
imposed in the interest of justice:-

i) The applicants will not tamper
with prosecution evidence and will not
harm or harass the victim/complainant in
any manner whatsoever.

ii) The applicants will abide the
orders of court, will attend the court on
every date and will not delay the disposal
of trial in any manner whatsoever.

(iii) The applicants shall file an
undertaking to the effect that they shall not
seek any adjournment on the date fixed for
evidence when the witnesses are present in
court. In case of default of this condition, it
shall be open for the trial court to treat it as
abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in
accordance with law.

(iv) The applicants will not
misuse the liberty of bail in any manner
whatsoever. In case, the applicants misuse
the liberty of bail during trial and in order
to secure their presence proclamation under
section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if
applicants fail to appear before the court on
the date fixed in such proclamation, then,
the trial court shall initiate proceedings
against them, in accordance with law, under
section 174-A I.P.C.

(V) The applicants shall remain
present, in person, before the trial court on
9 All. Bahadur Prasad Vs. State of U.P.
163
dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2)
framing of charge and (3) recording of
statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in
the opinion of the trial court absence of the
applicants
are
deliberate
or
without
sufficient cause, then it shall be open for
the trial court to treat such default as abuse
of liberty of bail and proceed against them
in accordance with law and the trial court
may proceed against them under Section
229-A IPC.

(vi) The trial court may make all
possible efforts/endeavour and try to
conclude the trial expeditiously after the
release of the applicant.

18. The identity, status and residential
proof of sureties will be verified by court
concerned and in case of breach of any of
the conditions mentioned above, court
concerned will be at liberty to cancel the
bail and send the applicants to prison.

19. The bail applications are allowed.

20. The party shall file computer
generated copy of such order downloaded
from the official website of High Court
Allahabad.

21. The computer generated copy of
such order shall be self attested by the
counsel of the party concerned.

22.

The
concerned
Court/Authority/Official shall verify the
authenticity of such computerized copy of
the order from the official website of High
Court Allahabad
and
shall
make
a
declaration of such verification in writing.
----------
(2020)09ILR A163
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.09.2020
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 19880 of 2020

Bahadur Prasad ...Applicant(In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Sanjeev Kumar Shukla

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
A.G.A.

Criminal
Law-Narcotics
Drugs
and
Psychotropic Substances Act - Sections
8/20 -Narcotics Control Bureau- Standing
Instruction
No.
1/88-
Recovery
of
Contraband
from
possession
of
the
applicant- Sample has not been taken
from each packet and hence it could not
be said that the amount of contraband
material obtained is of such quantity as
has been shown by the police. The
Narcotic Control Bureau, New Delhi by
issuing standing Instruction No.1/88 has
laid down the standards of procedure to
be followed in the matters of recovery of
contraband substances and taking of their
samples. These instructions have been
issued with a view to bring uniformity of
approach in such matters and also to
provide for a secure system of handling of
drugs' samples which is to standardise the
procedure
with
regard
to
drawing,
forwarding and testing of samples.

Samples from each recovered
packet of
recovered contraband have to be taken in
accordance with the directions contained in
Standing Order No. 1/88 of the NCB, failing
which the recovery of the contraband may not
be considered genuine.

Bail Application allowed. (E-3)

Case law relied upon/ Discussed: -

1. Dataram Singh Vs St. of U.P.: (2018) 3 SCC 22