# Riyaz Alam v. The Union of India

- **Citation:** (2019) 1 ILRA 34
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-08-07
- **Case number:** CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No.17657 of 2018
- **Bench:** Manju Rani Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/riyaz-alam-v-the-union-of-india-44461
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

of sub-section (1) of Section 37 of the
NDPS Act are in addition to limitations for
grant of bail under section 439 Cr.P.C.

 (Para 8)

The jurisdiction of the Courts to grant bail is
circumscribed by the provision of Section 37
of the NDPS Act. Bail can be granted in a
case where there are reasonable grounds for
believing that accused is not guilty of such
offence and that he is not likely to commit
any offence while on bail. Contraband item
more
than
the
commercial
quantity,
recovered from the accused. Hence no
ground for bail made out. (Para 7)

Bail application rejected. (Para 22)

Chronological list of Cases Cited: -

## Text

34 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
unnatural to except that witnesses would be
in a position to vouchsafe as to which fire
arm wound was caused by which accused.
The accused came together with the
common intention and having same object
in their mind and after resorting to such
indiscreet firing they went away together
and the act of one accused would also make
in such circumstances the other accused
liable vicariously for the same offence. The
evidence against the appellants is clear,
cogent and unassailable that they are
authors of the injuries caused to the
deceased as well as to the victim. The
number of entry wounds and the number of
accused are also not inconsistent with each
other and it is certainly not a case in which
one may argue that the number of assailants
was far more than the number of injuries
caused to the victim side showing their false
implication.

8. It may be observed that ordinarily
this Court leans liberally in favour of
accused in cases where the period of
detention is prolonged but the same alone
cannot be applied as a straight jacket
formula in all cases without keeping in
perspective the nature of crime, the gravity
of offence, the sufficiency and nature of
evidence available, the background of the
offender
and
several
other
relevant
circumstances. This is much more so
because this Court has expressed its
inclination and openness to have final
hearing in the matter. But ironically enough
there appears reluctance on the part of
counsel in this regard whose keenness
appears to be confined only with regard to
procurement of bail. It is certainly not a
matter where it may be said that as there is
no likelihood of early hearing or conclusion
of this appeal therefore, the accused should
be released on the ground of longer
detention. It is indeed disappointing to see
this unhealthy trend insidiously creeping in
and gaining ground that complete reluctance
to argue the appeal finally is being
displayed at the bar which in its turn
contributes not only to the prolongation of
detention period of accused but also to the
rise of staggering pendency of appeals. We
cannot lend our countenance to such kind of
reluctance on the part of appellant or his
legal representative nor can we allow the
same to be used as a contrivance to procure
bail in the name of prolixity of detention
period to which they themselves are
contributory.

9. Therefore, in this background so
far as the bail matter is concerned,
looking to the nature of offence, its
gravity and the evidence in support of it
and the overall circumstances of this case,
this Court is of the view that the
appellants have not made out a case for
bail. Therefore, the prayer for bail of the
appellants is rejected.

10.

It
is
clarified
that
the
observations, if any, made in this order
are strictly confined to the disposal of the
bail application and must not be construed
to have any reflection on the ultimate
merits of the case.

11. (Order on Appeal)

12. Office is directed to prepare the
paper
book
and
list
for
hearing
immediately thereafter.
--------

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.08.2019

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.
1 All. Riyaz Alam Vs. The Union of India
35
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION
No.17657 of 2018

Riyaz Alam ...Applicant
Versus
The Union of India ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Mohd. Shabbir, Sri Gopeshwar Sahai
Bisaria, Sri Mohd. Shamim Khan.

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, Sri Narendra Deo
Rai

A. Restrictions placed by sub-clause (b)
of sub-section (1) of Section 37 of the
NDPS Act are in addition to limitations for
grant of bail under section 439 Cr.P.C.

 (Para 8)

The jurisdiction of the Courts to grant bail is
circumscribed by the provision of Section 37
of the NDPS Act. Bail can be granted in a
case where there are reasonable grounds for
believing that accused is not guilty of such
offence and that he is not likely to commit
any offence while on bail. Contraband item
more
than
the
commercial
quantity,
recovered from the accused. Hence no
ground for bail made out. (Para 7)

Bail application rejected. (Para 22)

Chronological list of Cases Cited: -

1. SK. Raju alias Abdul Haque alias Jagga vs.
State of West Bengal(2018) 9 SCC 708

2. Satpal Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2018) 13
SCC 813

3. Union of India Vs. Rattan Mallik alias Habul
(2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 831

4. Narcotics Control Bureau Vs. R. Paulsamy
(2000) 9 SCC 549

5. Union of India Vs. Ram Samujh and another
(1999) 39 ACC 643
6. Thankgod Afam Ezeme vs. B.D. Goel and
Another 2000 (1) Mh.L.J. page 82

7. 2003 (47) ACC-763 (Madan Lal and another
Vs. State of Himanchal Pradesh)

8. 2003 Crl.L.J.-4329 (Megh Singh Vs. State of
Punjab)

9. 2005(52) ACC-710 (State of Himanchal
Pradesh Vs. Pawan Kumar)

10. Varinder Kumar Vs. State of Himachal
Pradesh, reported in 2019 SCC Online 170

11. Himanchal Pradesh vs. Pawan Kumar
(2005) 52 ACC 710

12. Alakh Alok Srivastava Vs. Union of India and
Another reported in AIR 2018 (SC) 2004. (E-2)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manju Rani
Chauhan, J.)

1. Heard Mr. Gopeshwar Sahai
Bisaria, learned counsel for the applicant,
Mr. Narendra Deo Rai, learned Special
Public Prosecutor (Narcotics).

2. I have gone through the material
on record.

3. The instant bail application has
been filed by the applicant- Riyaz Alam
respectively with a prayer to enlarge them
on bail in Case Crime No. 05 of 2017,
under Section 8/20 N.D.P.S. Act, Police
Station-
Central
Narcotic
Bureau,
Bareilly, District-Bareilly, during the
pendency of the trial.

4. The factual matrix of the case is
that on 01.08.2017, the team of Central
Narcotic Bureau, Bareilly, arrested the
applicant Riyaz Alam and on surprise
search, 4.500 kg. of 'charas' has been
recovered from the trolley bag, which he
carried on his shoulder and Rs. 1,85,700/-
was also recovered from his possession. A
36 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
recovery memo was prepared in front of
two witnesses, namely, Mr. Vinod Kumar
and Mr. Manoj Kumar, after informing
the applicant about his right as provided
under Section 50 of NDPS Act, hence the
present F.I.R. was lodged under Section
8/20 of NDPS Act.

5. It has been argued by the learned
counsel for the applicant that the applicant
is
innocent
and
has
been
falsely
implicated in the present case. He is
originally resident of Viswan (Bhiswan),
Parsa, Nepal and runs a medical shop
there for which he has a license. On
30.07.2017, he had proceeded from
Anand Vihar to Muzaffarpur, Bihar by
Suptkranti express but on the way at
Moradabad, he was asked to get down, by
the Police personnels in-ordinary dress.
They had also taken his suitcase.
Thereafter, the Police took him from
Moradabad
to
Bareilly
and
falsely
implicated him in the present case. It is
further argued by learned counsel for the
applicant that on 01.08.2017, he was not
present at Satellite Bus Stand, where he is
said to have been intercepted by the
Police personnels on a surprise check.
The alleged witnesses, namely, Vinod
Kumar and Manoj Kumar are not the
actual witnesses. Nothing was recovered
from his possession and the alleged
recovery is false and concocted. It is
further argued by the learned counsel for
the applicant that the alleged recovered
money of Rs. 1,85,700/- was his own but
the Police after taking Rs. 2.00 Lacs from
him, has shown only 1,85,700/-. It is
further argued by the learned counsel for
the applicant that no compliance of the
provisions of NDPS Act has been made
by the police at the time of his arrest. The
Police has also not complied with the
provisions of Section 50 of NDPS Act as
he
was
not
searched
before
any
Magistrate or gazetted officer. In the
present case, 4.500 kg of 'charas' has been
recovered from the bag being carried by
the applicant and Rs. 1,85,700/- has also
been recovered from the personal search,
hence Section 50 of NDPS Act was
attracted. In support of his contention
learned counsel for the applicant has
relied upon the judgement of Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of SK. Raju alias Abdul
Haque alias Jagga vs. State of West
Bengal, (2018) 9 SCC 708. It is further
argued by the learned counsel for the
applicant that no prior information was
given by the police personnels regarding
any such drugs being carried by the
applicant, which is mandatorily required
under Section 50 of NDPS Act. It is
further argued by learned counsel for
the applicant that the applicant has no
criminal antecedents to their credit
except the present one. As the present
case is false, the applicant is liable to be
enlarged on bail. It is further argued by
the counsel for the applicant that the
applicant has been detained in jail for a
period of more than two years, i.e. on
01.08.2017, seeing period of detention, he
requests for grant of bail. There is no
possibility of the applicants of fleeing away
from the judicial process or tampering with
the witnesses and in case, the applicants are
enlarged on bail, the applicants shall not
misuse the liberty of bail.

6. Per contra, Mr. Narendra Deo
Rai, learned Special Public Prosecutor
(Narcotics) has vehemently argued that
since the recovery was made from a bag,
which was carried by the applicant and
not from the personal search of the
applicant, hence the provisions of Section
50 of NDPS Act is not attracted in the
present case. He further submitted that
1 All. Riyaz Alam Vs. The Union of India
37
since the bag contained 4.500 kg. of
charas, which exceeds the limit of
commercial
quantity
then
for
consideration of bail the provisions of
Section 37 of NDPS is attracted.

7. The jurisdiction of the Courts to
grant bail is circumscribed by the
provision of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
Bail can be granted in a case where there
are reasonable grounds for believing that
accused is not guilty of such offence and
that he is not likely to commit any offence
while on bail. The provision makes the
offences under the Act cognizable and
non-bailable. It would be useful to quote
Section 37 of NDPS Act.

" 37. Offences to be cognizable
and non-bailable- (1) Notwithstanding
anything contained in the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973-

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

(b) No person accused of an
offence punishable for offences under
Section 19 or Section 24 or Section 27A
and also for the offences involving
commercial quantity shall be released on
bail 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 subsection (1) are in addition to the
limitations under the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 or any other law for the
time being in force, on granting of bail.

8. From a bare perusal of nonobstante clause in the Section and subsection (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 subclause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 37
of the NDPS Act. Apart from giving an
opportunity to the Public Prosecutor to
oppose the application, the other two
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
conditions are cumulative and not
alternative.

9. Hon'ble Apex Court in Satpal
Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2018) 13 SCC
813; in paragraph no.3 has held as
follows:-

"3. Under Section 37 of the NDPS
Act, when a person is accused of an offence
punishable under Section 19 or 24 or 27A
and also for offences involving commercial
quantity, he shall not be released on bail
unless the Public Prosecutor has been given
an opportunity to oppose the application for
such release, and in case a Public Prosecutor
opposes the application, the court must be
satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for
believing that the person is not guilty of the
38 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
alleged offence and that he is not likely to
commit any offence while on bail. Materials
on record are to be seen and the antecedents
of the accused is to be examined to enter
such a satisfaction. These limitations are in
addition to those prescribed under the Cr.P.C
or any other law in force on the grant of bail.
In view of the seriousness of the offence, the
law makers have consciously put such
stringent restrictions on the discretion
available to the court while considering
application for release of a person on bail. It
is unfortunate that the provision has not been
noticed by the High Court. And it is more
unfortunate that the same has not been
brought to the notice of the Court."

10. Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of
India Vs. Rattan Mallik alias Habul
(2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 831 observed thus:

"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
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."

11. In Narcotics Control Bureau
Vs. R. Paulsamy (2000) 9 SCC 549,
Hon'ble Supreme Court observed thus:

"In the light of Section 37 of the
Act no accused can be released on bail
when the application is opposed by the
Public Prosecutor unless the Court is
satisfied that there are reasonable grounds
for believing that he is not guilty of such
offences and that he is not likely to
commit any offence while on bail. It is
unfortunate that regarding compliance
with Sections 52 and 57 have been prejudged by the learned Single Judge at the
stage of consideration for bail. The
minimum which the learned Single Judge
should have been taken into account was
the factual presumption in law position
that official acts have been regularly
performed. Such presumption can be
rebutted only during evidence and not
merely saying that no document has been
produced before the learned Single Judge
during
bail
stage
regarding
the
compliance
with
the
formalities
mentioned in those two sections."

12. In Union of India Vs. Ram
Samujh and another, (1999) 39 ACC
643, Hon'ble Supreme Court held as
under:

"It is to be borne in mind that
the aforesaid legislative mandate is
required to be adhered and followed. It
should be borne in mind that in murder
case, accused commits murder of one or
two persons, while those persons who are
dealing in narcotic drugs are instrumental
in causing death or inflicting death blow
to number of innocent young victims,
who are vulnerable, it causes deleterious
effects and deadly impact on the society,
they are hazard to the society, even if they
are
released
temporarily,
in
all
probability, they would continue their
nefarious activities of trafficking and/or
dealing in intoxicants clandestinely."
1 All. Riyaz Alam Vs. The Union of India
39

13. Bearing in mind the above broad
principles laid down by Hon'ble Supreme
Court,
I
shall
now
consider
the
contentions raised by the learned counsel
for the parties.

14. Mr. N.D. Rai, also contended
that the contention raised by the learned
counsel for the applicant that while search
was made, compliance of mandatory
provisions of Section 50 of NDPS Act
was not followed by the officers of the
Narcotics Department. It would be useful
to quote Section 50 of the NDPS Act:-

50. Conditions under which
search of persons shall be conducted.- (1)
When any officer duly authorized under
section 42 is about to search any person
under the provisions of section 41, section
42 or section 43, he shall, if such person
so requires, take such person without
unnecessary delay to the nearest Gazetted
Officer of any of the departments
mentioned in section 42 or to the nearest
Magistrate.

(2) If such requisition is made,
the officer may detain the person until he
can bring him before the Gazetted Officer
or the Magistrate referred to in subsection (1).

(3) The Gazetted Officer or the
Magistrate before whom any such person
is brought shall, if he sees no reasonable
ground for search, forthwith discharge the
person but otherwise shall direct that
search be made.

(4) No female shall be searched
by anyone excepting a female. 1[(5)
When an officer duly authorised under
section 42 has reason to believe that it is
not possible to take the person to be
searched to the nearest Gazetted Officer
or Magistrate without the possibility of
the person to be searched parting with
possession of any narcotic drug or
psychotropic substance, or controlled
substance or article or document, he may,
instead of taking such person to the
nearest Gazetted Officer or Magistrate,
proceed to search the person as provided
under section 100 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).

(6) After a search is conducted
under sub-section (5), the officer shall
record the reasons for such belief which
necessitated such search and within
seventy-two hours send a copy thereof to
his immediate official superior.]

Section 50 of the NDPS Act
gives a right to the persons concerned that
he can be searched before a gazetted
officer and if he opts like that, the search
shall be before the gazetted officer.

15. Mr. N.D. Rai, also contended
that perusal of the records, clearly shows
that 4.500 kg. charas was recovered from
the bag, which was possessed by the
applicant, besides that a cash of Rs.
1,85,700/- was also recovered from him.
In the recovery memo, it has been
mentioned that the accused-applicant was
informed about his right for search before
the Magistrate or gazetted officer as
provided under Section 50 of NDPS Act.
That the public witnesses have also been
shown of the alleged recovery. For his
proposition, learned counsel relied upon
the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Thankgod Afam Ezeme vs. B.D. Goel
and Another reported in 2000 (1)
Mh.L.J. page 82 in which the Hon'ble
Apex Court has held that the mandatory
provisions of Sections 42 and 50 of the
NDPS Act are not applicable to chance
40 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
recovery as such recovery is not on prior
information which is requirement of
Section 50 of NDPS Act and such
provisions are applicable only, in case, of
personal search. In para nos. 7 and 8 of
the said judgment, it was observed as
follows:-

"7.
...........there
is
noncompliance of provisions of sections 42
and 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act. In support of
her contention she relied on the decision
of the Supreme Court in the case of State
of Punjab vs. Balbir Singh reported in
AIR 1994 SC 1872. According to her the
procedure laid down under the said
provisions which is mandatory was not
complied with. In our view the said
provisions cannot be invoked for the
simple reason that this was a case of
chance recovery and the officers were not
acting on the prior information which is
the requirement of section 50 of the Act.
It was only when the baggages of the
appellant were taken through X-ray
screening
counter
that
the
officer
suspected the concealment in the said
baggages and, therefore, informed the PW
3 and other officers of the Customs about
the suspicion.

8. Secondly, the said provision
would be applicable only in case of
personal search that is the search of
articles from the person or body of a
person or the search is made of articles in
immediate possession such as bag and
other baggage carried by the person or in
physical possession of the person to be
searched. The decision of the Supreme
Court
in
Balbir
Singh's
case
was
considered and interpreted by the Full
Bench of this Court in the case of
Ebanezer Adebaya @. Monday Obtor vs,
B. S. Rawat, Collector of Customs and
another reported in 1996(2) Mh.LJ. 280.
According
to
the
Full
Bench
the
provisions of section 50 would be
applicable only in case of personal search
of a person i.e. of articles on the person or
body of the person or of articles in
immediate possession of such person such
as bag and other luggage carried by him
or in physical possession of the person to
be searched and such search was effected
on prior information and not in case of
accidental recovery of the contraband
from any person. The Full Bench was
further pleased to observe that the
provisions of section 50 would not be
applicable to a search of bag or baggage
which are presumed to be in possession of
the person even though it may be lying in
a house or railway compartment or at the
Airport nor would it be applicable to a
case of search of a place, conveyance or a
house if the accused is physically present
at the time of search. Similar view was
taken by the later decision of the Supreme
Court in the case of Namdi Francis
Nwazor vs. Union of India and another,
(1998) 8 SCC 534 the facts of which are
similar to the facts in the present case. In
para 3 of the Judgment of the Supreme
Court it was observed as follows :

"3. On a plain reading of subsection (1) of section 50, it is obvious that
it applies to cases of search of any person
and not search of any article in the sense
that the article is at a distant place from
where the offender is actually searched. "

In that case also the Court was
concerned with the accused who was a
Nigerian National and was found in
possession of narcotic drugs while on his
way
to
Lagos
at
the
IndiraGandhiInternationalAirport,
New
Delhi. In that view of the matter reliance
1 All. Riyaz Alam Vs. The Union of India
41
on the aforesaid Judgment of the Supreme
Court in Balbir Singh's case is misplaced.

The view taken by the Supreme
Court in Balbir Singh's case has been
upheld by the Constitution Bench of the
Supreme Court in the case of State of
Punjab vs. Baldev Singh in Criminal
Appeal No. 396 of 1999 decided on 21st
July, 1999."

16. Apart from this, it has also been
held by the Hon'ble Apex that the
provisions are of Section 50 of NDPS Act
stands attracted in case of personal search
and not, in the case where the search was
given effect otherwise than from the
personal search of the accused. Following
cases were relied upon:-

1. 2003 (47) ACC-763 (Madan
Lal and another Vs. State of Himanchal
Pradesh).

2. 2003 Crl.L.J.-4329 (Megh
Singh Vs. State of Punjab)

3.2005(52) ACC-710 (State of
Himanchal Pradesh Vs. Pawan Kumar).

In the aforesaid judgments, it
has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court
that Section 50 of NDPS Act applies only
in case of personal search of a person. It
does not extend to search of a vehicle or
container or a bag or premises. In the
present case, the contraband 'charas was
recovered from a bag, which was being
carried by the applicant, hence it was not
a personal search.

17. Apart from this, in the case of
Varinder Kumar Vs. State of Himachal
Pradesh, reported in 2019 SCC Online
170, it has been stated that Section 50 of
NDPS Act reiterated had no application,
since the recovery was not a personal of
the applicant but from the bag being
carried at his shoulder. There was no
material to conclude that the witnesses
was withheld or suppressed by the
prosecution with any ulterior motive.

18. Moreover, in the case of State of
Himanchal Pradesh vs. Pawan Kumar
(2005) 52 ACC 710 wherein meaning of
the word "person" has been discussed, the
word "person" would mean a human
being with appropriate covering and
clothing and also footwear. A bag, brief
case or any such articles or container, etc.
can, under no circumstance be treated as a
body of a human beings.

19. Mr. N.D. Rai, has further
contended that in the present case, it is a
chance recovery and the charas has
recovered not from personal search,
therefore, compliance of Section 50 of
NDPS Act is not mandatory. Even
otherwise, with regard to Section 50 of
NDPS Act, there is compliance of Section
50 of NDPS Act as mentioned in the
recovery memo that the accused-applicant
was informed of his right of personal
search before the Magistrate or a gazetted
officer and was issued notice under
Section 50 of NDPS Act. There is nothing
on record to show that there was any
material to falsely implicate the applicant
in the present case.

20. So far as the contention raised
by the learned counsel for the applicant
that the applicant has been detained in jail
for a period of more than two years, i.e.
on 01.08.2017, to which Mr. N.D. Rai has
stated that the period of detention is not a
valid reason to release the applicant on
bail in such a heinous crime, wherein
charas of 4.500 kg, which is more than
commercial quantity, has been recovered
from the bag being carried by the
applicant.
42 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

21. Dealing with the complicity of
applicant-accused and in light of the
material on record, Mr. N.D. Rai, learned
Special Public Prosecutor (Narcotics)
vehemently submits that no case for bail
is made out and the bail application of the
present applicant is liable to be rejected. It
is lastly contended that the innocence of
the applicant cannot be adjudged at this
stage, therefore, he do not deserve any
indulgence.

22.

Having
considered
the
submissions made by the learned counsel
for the applicant, the learned A.G.A. for
the State and upon perusal of the evidence
brought on record as well as the
complicity of the applicant, I do not find
any good reason to exercise my discretion
in favour of the accused applicant. Thus,
the bail application stand rejected.

23. However, the trial court is
expected to gear up the trial of the
aforesaid case and conclude the same as
expeditious, as possible from the date of
receipt of certified copy of this order,
keeping in view the law laid down by the
Apex Court in the case of Alakh Alok
Srivastava Vs. Union of India and
Another reported in AIR 2018 (SC)
2004, if there is no legal impediment, in
accordance with law, without granting
any unnecessary adjournment to either of
the parties, provided the applicant fully
cooperate in conclusion of the trial, if
there is no other legal impediment.

24. Office is directed to transmit a
certified copy of this order to the court
concerned within a fortnight.

25. It is clarified that any
observations, if any, made by this Court
are strictly confined to the disposal of
the bail application and must not be
construed to have any reflection on the
ultimate merits of the case
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.07.2019

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAMESH SINHA, J.
THE HON'BLE RAJ BEER SINGH, J.

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.18596 of 2019

Babir Singh Chandel ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P.& Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Sukendu Pal Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A.

A. Article 226:- Writ Petition for quashing
F.I.R. or a charge-sheet should
be
exercised
sparingly
and
only
in
exceptional cases and Courts should not
ordinarily
interfere
with
the
investigations of cognizable offences.
(Para 5)

The questions of fact cannot be examined by
this Court in proceedings under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India.
(Para 9 &10)

Writ petition dismissed. (Para 13).

Chronological list of Cases Cited:-

1. AIR 1992 SC 605 State of Haryana and
others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal

2. Ajit Singh @ Muraha v. State of U.P. (2006
(56) ACC 433)

3. Satya Pal v. State of U.P. (2000 Cr.L.J.569)