UDAYRAJ Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Amit Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Ashish Pandey learned counsel for the N.C.B. (opposite party No. 2), learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

(2.) The present bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant-Udayraj @ Raj to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 253 of 2021, under Ss. 8/21/29 of N.D.P.S. Act (N.C.B. Case Crime No. 01 of 2022), Police Station-Fatehganj East, District-Bareilly/ N.C.B., Lucknow.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that first information report has been lodged against nine person on 18/8/2021 at 16.31 hours in respect to the incident occurred on 18/8/2021 at 13.50 hours but applicant was not named in the said first information report. It is further submitted that on the basis of information given by informer, police party intercepted a santro car and thereafter two persons, namely Chote @ Saheed Khan and Raj @ Saif Khan have been arrested, who were loading articles in the said Santro Car. Subsequently, from the possession of Chote @ Saheed Khan and Raj @ Saif Khan as well as from said Santro Car, 20 K.G. smack is alleged to be recovered. The arrested accused have disclosed the names of seven other persons, who have also been named in the said first information report. It is further submitted that during course of investigation from the confessional statement of co-accused Chote @ Saheed Khan under Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. complicity of applicant has been disclosed accordingly, applicant was made accused and arrested on 15/1/2022. He next submitted that nothing has been recovered either from the possession of the applicant or from the pointing out of applicant. He next submitted that the statement of applicant has been manipulated by N.C.B. under Sec. 67 of N.D.P.S. Act applying pressure upon him, he relied upon the case law of Apex court report in 2021 114 ACC 365 Toofan Singh vs. State of Tamilnadu and submitted that said statement of applicant recorded under Sec. 67 of N.DP.S. Act does not have any evidentiary value. He further submitted that mandatory provision of Ss. 50, 52 and 57 of N.D.P.S. Act have also not been followed by N.C.B. He also submitted that previously applicant has been falsely implicated in Case Crime No. 142 of 2004 under Sec. 21 of N.D.P.S. Act, therefore, he was convicted for period already undergone and fine and in another Case Crime No. 689 of 2021 applicant has been granted bail vide order dtd. 13/1/2021. He further submitted that identically situated Co-accused applicants, namely, Mohd. Sher Khan, Faiyaz Hussain, Zaki Khan and Kiswari Begum have already been granted by this court, the bail orders of co-accused have been annexed as Annexure No. R.A.2 to the rejoinder affidavit. He further relied upon a case of Apex Court dtd. 25/10/2021 (Sanjeev Chandra Agrawal and another vs. Union of India, the order runs as follows: