# Trishul Chandra Jaiswal (In Jail) v. Union of India

- **Citation:** (2021) 8 ILRA 414
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-07-30
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 7399 of 2019
- **Bench:** Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/trishul-chandra-jaiswal-in-jail-v-union-of-india-47218
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 439 -Narcotics
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,
1985-Sections8/20/27A/29/60
-
application-rejection-applicants
claims
parity-mandatory provision u/s 37 of the
Act is attracted-in the present case the
recovered and seized contraband was
354.205 kgs. of ganja from two vehicles,
which is much more than the commercial
quantity- for the offences u/s 27A and 29
recovery from physical possession is not
required-more so, applicant had been
involved in four cases of same nature-on
all occasions he obtained bail orders and
misused the same repeatedly- merely long
detention in jail does not entitle an
accused to be enlarged on bail.(Para 1 to
14).

B. The scheme of the section 37 reveals
that the exercise of power to grant bail is
not
only
subject
to
the
limitations
contained u/s 439 of the Cr.P.C., but is
also subject to the limitation placed by
section 37 which commences with nonobstante clause. the operative portion of
the said section is in 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.(Para 8,9)

C. When a stand was taken that the
accused was a history sheeter, it is
imperative for the Court to scruitinize
every aspect and not capriciously record
that the accused is entitled to be released
on bail on the ground of parity.(Para 13)

The application is rejected. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

414 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
documentary evidence. Examining the
finding given by D.D.C. in the light of the
jurisdiction as enunciated u/s 48 of the Act,
this Court do not find any illegality or
perversity
in
the
order
passed
by
respondent no.1, who has made minor
alteration in the chak carved out over plot
no.380/27, 378 etc by providing larger area
of original holding of the petitioner.

17. In this conspectus as discussed
above, I do not find any merit in the present
writ petition warranting indulgence of this
Hon'ble Court to exercise its extraordinary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. Petition is totally
devoid on merits, therefore, is accordingly
dismissed. There is no order for cost.
----------
(2021)08ILR A414
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD. 30.07.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI
CHAUHAN, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 7399 of 2019

Trishul Chandra Jaiswal
 ...Applicant (In Jail)
Versus
Union of India ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Vikrant Neeraj, Sri Ashok Kumar
Pandey, Sri Chandra Kesh Mishra, Sri
Krishna Nand Singh, Sri Satish Sharma

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
Sri Ashish Pandey

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 439 -Narcotics
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,
1985-Sections8/20/27A/29/60
-
application-rejection-applicants
claims
parity-mandatory provision u/s 37 of the
Act is attracted-in the present case the
recovered and seized contraband was
354.205 kgs. of ganja from two vehicles,
which is much more than the commercial
quantity- for the offences u/s 27A and 29
recovery from physical possession is not
required-more so, applicant had been
involved in four cases of same nature-on
all occasions he obtained bail orders and
misused the same repeatedly- merely long
detention in jail does not entitle an
accused to be enlarged on bail.(Para 1 to
14).

B. The scheme of the section 37 reveals
that the exercise of power to grant bail is
not
only
subject
to
the
limitations
contained u/s 439 of the Cr.P.C., but is
also subject to the limitation placed by
section 37 which commences with nonobstante clause. the operative portion of
the said section is in 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.(Para 8,9)

C. When a stand was taken that the
accused was a history sheeter, it is
imperative for the Court to scruitinize
every aspect and not capriciously record
that the accused is entitled to be released
on bail on the ground of parity.(Para 13)

The application is rejected. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

1. Chandigarh Administration Vs Jagjit Singh
(1995) AIR SC 705

2. Satyedra Singh Vs St. of U.P. (1996) A. Cr. R.
867
8 All. Trishul Chandra Jaiswal Vs. Union of India
415
3. U.O.I .Vs Rattan Mallik @ Habul, (2009) 1
SCC (Cri) 831

4. U.O.I. Vs Shiv Shankar Kesari, (2007) 7 SCC
798

5. U.O.I .Vs Ram Samujh (1999) 9 SCC 429

6. St. of Ker.Etc. Vs Rajesh Etc. (2020) AIR SC
721

7. Vijay Kumar Vs Narendra & ors. (2002) 9
SCC 364

8. Ramesh Kumar Singh Vs Jhabbar Singh & ors.
(2004) SCC (Cri) 1067

9. Girand Singh Vs St. of U.P. (2010) 69 ACC 39

10. Rajesh Ranjan Yadav Vs CBI thru its
Director (2007) 1 SCC 70

11. Sudha Singh Vs St. of U.P. & anr. (2021) 4
SCC 781

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

1. Heard Mr. Satish Sharma, learned
counsel for the applicant, Mr. Ashish
Pandey, learned Special Counsel for the
Union
of
India/Narcotics
Bureau
of
Investigation (for short "NCB"), as well as
perused the entire material available on
record.

2. This is the second bail application
filed by the applicant. The first bail
application filed by the present applicant
has been rejected as withdrawn by this
Bench vide order dated 24th October, 2019
passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application
No. 38334 of 2019.

3. The applicant-Trishool Chandra
Jaiswal,
has
filed
this
second
bail
application with a prayer to enlarge him on
bail in Case Crime No. 04 of 2016, under
Sections
8/20/27A/29/60
of
Narcotics
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,
1985 ( for shot NDPS Act"), Police StationIndustrial
Area,
DistrictAllahabad/Prayagraj, during the pendency
of the trial.

4. In nutshell, prosecution case is that
the complainant is an Intelligence Officer
of NCB, Zonal Office Lucknow. On 9th
February, 2016 at 1000 hrs. Superintendent
of NCB, Zonal Unit at Lucknow received a
specific
information
through
Zonal
Director, NCB, Lucknow from STF,
Allahabad telephonically that two persons
resident of Manda, Allahabad are suspected
to carry huge quantity of Ganja concealed
in Mahindra pickup vehicles bearing
Registrar Nos. U.P. 64 H 8131 and U.P. 66
K 6415. The said persons with the above
said vehicles were to pass from Mawaiya
ADA crossing between 1500-1700 hrs. The
information was recorded in writing and
passed to the higher authorities. As per the
telephonic direction of Zonal Director, a
team was constituted. The said team left
Lucknow and reached Mawaiya ADA
crossing at 1730 hrs. on the same day,
where the said team met with the team of
STF, Allahabad and Station House Officer,
Police Station-Industrial Area, Allahabad
along
with
Sub-Inspector.
The
SubInspector, STF, Allahabad apprised the
team of NCB that on 9th February, 2016 at
1645 hrs, they intercepted two pick up
vehicles bearing registration nos. U.P. 64 H
8131 and U.P. 66 K 6415, wherein Ganja
has been concealed. Two persons were also
found in the vehicles. The team of NCB
reached near the vehicles and on asking of
the team of NCB, the person who was
driving the vehicle no. U.P. 64 H 8131
disclosed his name as Narendra Kumar and
the person who was driving the vehicle no.
U.P. 66 K 6415 disclosed his identity as
416 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Bhai Lal. The team of NCB requested the
local person to witness the procedure of
search and seizure under Section 50 of
NDPS Act but no one agreed. Thereafter,
notices under Section 50 of the NDPS Act
were served upon Narendra Kumar and
Bhai Lal to the said notice, both persons
responded in writing that they do not want
ot be searched before any Magistrate or
Gazetted Officer and NCB team itself may
carry out their personal search. Thereafter
personal search of above persons were
carried out. During search, two mobile
phones, Rs. 1200/- and Rs. 1800/- were
found from the personal possession of
Narendra Kumar and Bhai Lal respectively.
On the indication of Narendra Kumar and
Bhai Lal, total 354.205 kgs. Ganja was
recovered from both the vehicles. After
recovery the statements of both the persons
were recorded under Section 67 NDPS Act.
In the said statements both the accused
persons have admitted their involvement in
illicit trafficking of above seized 354.205
kgs. Ganja, which they received from the
Jungle
area,
150
km.
away
from
Sambalpur, Orissa by Trishul Chand
Jaiswal (applicant herein), son of Vijay Lal
Jaiswal and were to deliver the same to
Trishul Chand Jaiswal (applicant herein) at
Village-Tikari, Post-Babhani Hethar, Police
Station_manda, District-Allahabad (U.P.).
After
recording
of
the
confessional
statements of both the persons under
Section 67 of NDPS Act, the team of NCB
arrested them. The name of Kapoor Chand
Jaiswal, who happens to be brother of
Trishul Chand Jaiswal, also surfaced during
the course of investigation,. Some seized
material has been sent for chemical
examination of which the report of the Joint
Director, Government Opium & Alkaloid
Works,
Ghazipur
(UP)
dated
26th
February, 2016 was received in the Zonal
Office, NCB at Lucknow on 29th February,
2016. The report shows that on the basis of
chemical and cinematographic examination
of the samples, it is concluded that each of
the two sample under reference is Ganja
(Cannabis) within the meaning of NDPS
Act, 1985. The complaint case being Case
Crime No. 04 of 2016, under Sections
8/20/27A/29/60 of Narcotics Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ( for
shot NDPS Act"), Police Station-Industrial
Area,
District-Allahabad/Prayagraj
has
been filed before the District Judge by
NCB
against
four
persons,
namely,
Narendra Kumar, Bhai Lal, Trishul Chand
Jaiswal and Kapoor Chand Jaiswal.

5. In support of the present bail
application,
learned
counsel
for
the
applicant submits that neither the applicant
has been arrested from the spot nor any
intoxicating material has been recovered
from his possession. The applicant has been
falsely implicated and story has been built
up by the officers and official of NCB, STF
Allahabad and the Police Station-Manda,
Prayagraj
in
order
to
only
obtain
appreciation from their superior authorities.
The mandatory provisions of NDPS act has
not been complied with in the present case.
Apart from the above, learned counsel for
the applicant submits that the co-accused,
Kapoor Chand Jaiswal has already been
enlarged on bail by a Coordinate Bench of
this Court vide order dated 13th December,
2018 passed in Criminal Misc. 18546 of
2018. The case of the present applicant is
more or less identical to that of the
aforesaid co-accused. As such, the present
applicant may also be enlarged on bail. The
learned counsel for the applicant has
further argued that since the applicant is in
jail since 3rd November, 2018, therefore,
considering the long period of detention as
well as the status of the trial which is not
likely to be concluded in near future, the
8 All. Trishul Chandra Jaiswal Vs. Union of India
417
applicant be enlarged on bail. The applicant
has criminal antecedents of 13 cases but the
same have satisfactorily been explained in
paragraph-22
of
the
affidavit
accompanying the present bail application.
It is next contended that there is no
possibility of the applicant of fleeing away
from the judicial process or tampering with
the witnesses and in case, the applicant is
enlarged on bail, the applicant shall not
misuse the liberty of bail.

6. Per contra, Mr. Ashish Pandey,
learned counsel for the NCB has opposed
the bail prayer of the applicant. He
submits that the parity claimed by the
learned counsel for the applicant is liable
to be rejected on the ground that the grant
of bail is not a mechanical act and
principle
of
consistency
cannot
be
extended to repeating a wrong order. If
the order granting bail to an identically
placed co-accused has been passed in
flagrant
violation
of
well
settled
principle, it will be open to the Judge to
reject the bail application of the applicant
before him as no Judge is obliged to pass
orders against his conscience merely to
maintain consistency. Mr. Pandey has
also placed reliance upon following
judgments of the Apex Court as well as
of this Court:

a)
In
Chandigarh
Administration Vs. Jagjit Singh; AIR
1995 SC 705, the Apex Court in
paragraph-8 has held as follows:

"....... if the order in favour of
the other person is found to be contrary
to law or not warranted in the facts and
circumstances of his case, it is obvious
that such illegal and unwarranted order
cannot be made the basis of issuing a writ
compelling the respondent-authority to
repeat the illegality or to pass another
unwarranted order."

"...... The illegal/unwarranted
action must be corrected, if it can be
done according to law-indeed, wherever
it is possible, the Court should direct the
appropriate authority to correct such
wrong orders in accordance with law-but
even if it cannot be corrected, it is
difficult to see how it can be made a basis
for its repetition.

"..... Giving effect to such pleas
would be prejudicial to the interests of
law and will do incalculable mischief to
public interest. It will be a negation of
law and the rule of law."

b) In Special Leave Petition
No. 4059 of 2000: Rakesh Kumar
Pandey Vs. Munni Singh @ Mata Bux
Singh
and
another,
decided
on
12.3.2001, the Hon'ble Apex Court
strongly denounced the order of the
High Court granting bail to the coaccused on the ground of parity in a
heinous offence and while cancelling
the bail granted by the High Court it
observed that:-

"The High Court on being
moved, has considered the application
for bail and without bearing in mind the
relevant materials on record as well as
the gravity of offence released the
accused-respondents on bail, since the
co-accused, who had been ascribed
similar role, had been granted bail
earlier."

c) In Satyendra Singh Vs.
State of U.P.; 1996 A. Cr. R.867 also, the
following observations have been made
by this Court in para 16:-
418 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"The orders granting, refusing or
cancelling bail are orders of interlocutory
nature. It is true that discretion in passing
interim
orders
should
be
exercised
judicially but rule of parity is not
applicable in all the cases, where one or
more accused have been granted bail or
similar role has been assigned inasmuch as
bail is granted on the totality of facts and
circumstances of a case. Parity can not be
a sole ground and is one of the grounds for
consideration of the question of bail."

7. Even otherwise, Mr. Pandey,
learned counsel for the NCB has pointed
out that the Coordinate Bench while
granting bail to the co-accused, Kapoor
Chand Jaiswal of which, applicant claims
parity, has not considered the mandatory
provisions of Section 37 of NDPS Act.
There is no dispute that commercial
quantity of Ganja is 20 Kgs, but in the
present case the recovered and seized
contraband is 354.205 kgs. of Ganja from
two Tata pickup vehicles, which is much
more
than
the
commercial
quantity,
therefore, provisions of section 37 of
Narcotics
Drugs
&
Psychotropic
Substances Act are attracted in this case,
which is in addition to section 439 of
Cr.P.C. and mandatory in nature. He,
therefore, submits that before granting bail
for the offence under N.D.P.S. Act twin
conditions as provided under Section
37(1)(b) (i) and (ii) have to be satisfied.

8. Mr. Pandey has referred to Section
37 of the N.D.P.S. Act, which is quoted
herein below:

"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 [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."

9. Mr. Pandey submits that on several
occasions, the 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:

i. 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, reported in 2009 (1) SCC (Crl)
831, has settled the expression "reasonable
grounds". Relevant paragraphs no. 12, 13
and 14 are quoted herein below:
8 All. Trishul Chandra Jaiswal Vs. Union of India
419

"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 sub- section (1) of Section 37 of the
NDPS
Act.
Apart
from
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.

14. 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."

ii. In case of Union of India Vs. Ram
Samujh reported in 1999 (9) SCC 429, the
Apex
Court
has
made
following
observations in paragraph 7 of the said
judgment, which are reproduced herein
below:-

"7. 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 instruments
in causing death or in inflicting death blow
to number of innocent young victims, who
are vulnerable: it causes deleterious effects
and deadly impact on the society; they are
a 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. Reason may be
large stake and illegal profit involved. This
Court, dealing with the contention with
regard to punishment under NDPS Act, has
succinctly observed about the adverse
effect of such activities in Durand Didien v.
420 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Chief Secretary. Union Territory of Goa.
[1990] 1 SCC 95 as under:

"24.With deep concern, we may
point out that the organised activities of the
underworld and the clandestine smuggling of
narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances
into this country and illegal trafficking in
such drugs and substances have led to drug
addiction among a sizeable section of the
public, particularly the adolescents and
students of both sexes and the menace has
assumed serious and alarming proportion in
the recent years. Therefore, in order to
effectively
control
and
eradicate
this
proliferating
and
booming
devastating
menace, causing deleterious effects and
deadly impact on the society as a whole, the
Parliament in the wisdom has made effective
provisions by introducing this Act 81 of 1985
specifying
mandatory
minimum
imprisonment and fine."

iii. In Union of India Vs. Shiv
Shankar Kesari, reported in (2007) 7 SCC
798, the Apex Court elaborated and
explained the conditions for granting of bail
as provided under Section 37 of the Act.
Relevant paragraph Nos. 6 and 7 are
extracted here in below :

"6.
As
the
provision
itself
provides no person shall be granted bail
unless the two conditions are satisfied.
They are; the satisfaction of the Court that
there are reasonable grounds for believing
that the accused is not guilty and that he is
not likely to commit any offence while on
bail. Both the conditions have to be
satisfied. If either of these two conditions is
not satisfied, the bar operates and the
accused cannot be released on bail.

7. The expression used in Section
37 (1)(b) (ii) is "reasonable grounds". The
expression means something more than
prima
facie
grounds.
It
connotes
substantial probable causes for believing
that the accused is not guilty of the offence
charged
and
this
reasonable
belief
contemplated in turn points to existence of
such facts and circumstances as are
sufficient in themselves to justify recording
of satisfaction that the accused is not guilty
of the offence charged."

iv. In recent decision of Apex
Court in State of Kerala Etc. Vs. Rajesh
Etc. reported in AIR 2020 Supreme
Court
721,
the
Apex
Court
again
considered the scope of Section 37 of
N.D.P.S. Act and relying upon earlier
decision in Ram Samujh (Supra) held 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
8 All. Trishul Chandra Jaiswal Vs. Union of India
421
that the accused is not guilty of the alleged
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 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."

10. So far as the next submission of
the learned counsel for the applicant that
since the applicant is in incarceration for a
long time, he is liable to be released on bail
is concerned, Mr. Pandey, the learned
counsel for the NCB submits that the same
also has no leg to stand on the ground that
there is good authority to hold that mere
long detention in jail does not entitle an
accused to be enlarged on bail pending
trial. It has been held to this effect in Vijay
Kumar vs. Narendra and others, reported
in 2002 (9) SCC 364, Ramesh Kumar
Singh vs. Jhabbar Singh and others,
reported in 2004 SCC (Cri) 1067 and
Girand Singh vs. State of U.P., reported
in 2010 (69) ACC 39.

11. Mr. Pandey, has also referred to
the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in
the case of Rajesh Ranjan Yadav vs. CBI
through its Director reported in 2007 (1)
SCC 70 wherein the Apex Court has held
as under:

"..........None of the decisions
cited can be said to have laid down any
absolute and unconditional rule about
when bail should be granted by the Court
and when it should not. It all depends on
the facts and circumstances of each case
and it cannot be said there is any absolute
rule that the mere fact that the accused has
undergone a long period of incarceration
by itself would entitle him to be enlarged
on bail".

 In view of the aforesaid authority
of law, learned A.G.A. states that mere long
incarceration of the applicant cannot be a
ground to enlarge him on bail in such a
heinous offence like Section 304-B I.P.C.
He, therefore, submits that the present
second bail application is liable to be
rejected.

12. Mr. Pandey, learned counsel for
the NCB next submits that although the
applicant has explained his criminal history
in
paragraph-22
of
the
affidavit
accompanying the bail application and
copies of which have been brought on
record by means of the supplementary
affidavit, he is a habitual offender. He has
also been involved in four cases of same
nature like NDPS Act. On all occasions, he
has obtained bail orders and misused the
same repeatedly. If this Court releases him
on bail, he will misuse the same again by
indulging in another case. Learned counsel
for the NCB also submits that after
registration of the present complaint case,
the NCB has summoned the applicant
repeatedly, but he has not responded to the
same.

13. To the submission made by the
learned counsel for the applicant that no
intoxicating material has been recovered
from the possession of the applicant, Mr.
Pandey submits that the applicant is being
prosecuted for the offences under Sections
27A and 29 of NDPS Act. For the offences
under Section 27A and 29 of the NDPS
422 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Act, recovery from the physical possession
is not required. Thus, learned counsel for
the NCB submits that on this ground alone,
the applicant is not entitled for bail. In
support of this ground, learned counsel for
the NCB has placed reliance upon the latest
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
Sudha Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
& Another reported in (2021) 4 SCC 781.
He has also referred paragraph nos. 8 to 11,
which read as follows:

"8. This Court in Neeru Yadav vs.
State of U.P. held that when a stand was
taken that the accused was a history
sheeter, it was imperative for the High
Courts to scrutinise every aspect and not
capriciously record that the accused was
entitled to be released on bail on the
ground of parity.

9. In Ash Mohammad vs. Shiv Raj
Singh, this Court observed that when
citizens were scared to lead a peaceful life
and heinous offences were obstructions in
the establishment of a well-ordered society,
the courts play an even more important
role,
and
the
burden
is heavy.
It
emphasized on the need to have a proper
analysis of the criminal antecedents of the
accused.

10. In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar vs.
Ashis Chatterjee and Another, it was held
that this Court ordinarily would not
interfere with a High Court's order
granting or rejecting bail to an accused.
Nonetheless, it was equally imperative for
the High Court to exercise its discretion
judiciously, cautiously and strictly in
compliance with the ratio set by a catena of
decisions of this Court. The factors laid
down in the judgment were:

(i) Whether there was a prima
facie or reasonable ground to believe that
the accused had committed the offence;

(ii)
nature
and
gravity
of
accusations;

(iii) severity of the punishment in
the event of a conviction;

(iv)
danger
of
the
accused
absconding or fleeing, if granted bail;

(v) character, behaviour, means,
position and standing of the accused;

(vi) likelihood of repetition of the
offence;

(vii) reasonable apprehension of
the witnesses being influenced; and

(viii) danger of justice being
thwarted by grant of bail."

14. On the cumulative strength of the
aforesaid, learned counsel for the NCB
submits that this application of the applicant
for grant of bail is liable to be rejected.

15.

Having
considered
the
submissions made by the learned counsel
for the applicant, the learned counsel for
the NCB, upon perusal of the evidence
brought on record, authority of law
mentioned herein above, the nature of the
offence levelled against the applicant, the
provisions of NDPS Act and criminal
history of the applicant basically of the
same nature, I do not find any good reason
to exercise my discretion in favour of the
accused-applicant. Thus, this second bail
application stands rejected.
----------
8 All. Pankaj Grover Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, Govt. Of India, Lucknow
423
(2021)08ILR A423
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 26.08.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J.

Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S
438 No. 7661 of 2021

Pankaj Grover ...Applicant(In Jail)
Versus
Directorate of Enforcement, Govt. Of
India, Lucknow ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Priyam Kumar Singh, Amit Shukla, Dhruv
Rajpurohit, Kshitij Agnihotri, Neha Shukla

Counsel for the Opposite Party :
A.G.S., Shiv P. Shukla

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973-Section 438 - Prevention
of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Section
3/4-grant of anticipatory bail-applicationrejection-evidence collected revealed that
the applicant in connivance with his father
constantly manipulate the records to
conceal the "Proceeds of Crime" and sold
off half of the factory property after
knowledge
of
initiation
of
present
proceedings
under
PMLA-the
written
directions given by father to his son which
were recovered during the search clearly
establish
that
the
said
person
in
possession or use of the property
acquired out of /in lieu of "Proceeds of
Crime" in the instant case were prone to
encash
the
same
at
the
earliest
opportunity to frustrate the proceedings
under PMLA.(Para 1 to 37)

B.
Usually
socio-economic
offenders
abscond to some other country and after
that it becomes difficult to bring them
back
and
complete
the
criminal
proceeding against them. their monetary
sound condition particularly proceed of
crime obtained not by honest working but
by deceiving others causes more prone
situation for influencing witnesses and
other
evidences.
Furthermore,
status,
position of offender provides opportunity
to influence investigation and prosecution.
(Para 38)

The application is rejected. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

1. Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia Vs St. of Punj. (1980)
AIR SC 1632

2. Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs St. of
Mah.(2011) 1 SCC 694

3. Jai Prakash Singh Vs St. of Bih. & Anr.(2012)
4 SCC 379

4. Nikesh Tarachand Shah Vs U.O.I .&
anr.(2018) 11 SCC 1

5. Nagaland Senior Govt. Employees Welfare
Assn. & ors. Vs St. of Nagaland & ors. (2010) 7
SCC 643

6. Molar Mal (dead) thru L.Rs. Vs M/s Kay Iron
Works (Pvt) Ltd.(2000) 4 SCC 285

7. Dr. Shah Faesal & ors. Vs U.O.I. & anr.(2020)
4 SCC 1

8. Sh. Balchand Jain Vs St of M.P.(1976) 4 SCC
572

9. Satpal Singh Vs St. of Punj.(2018) 13 SCC 813

10. Sushila Aggarwal & ors . Vs St.(NCT of
Delhi) & anr. (2020) 5 SCC 1

11. P. Chidambaram Vs ED (2019) 9 SCC 24

12. Okram Ibobi Singh Vs ED (2020) SCC
OnLine Mani 365

13. Vinod Bhandari Vs Assistant Divector (2018)
SCC OnLine MP 1559

14. St. of Guj. Vs Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal
(1987) 2 SCC 364