QADIR ETC. Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE bail applications are being disposed of through common order. These are bail applications in Case Crime No. 310/1994 under Section 20 of NDPS Act, Police Station Delhi Gate, District Aligarh ; Case Crime No. 316 of 1994 under Section 21 (1) of NPDS Act, Police Station Rohania, District Varanasi and Case Crime No. 141/1994 under Section 21(1) of NDPS Act, Police Station Adampur District Varansi.

(2.) SHORNE of the irrelevant facts of Criminal Misc. Bail application No. 9037 of 1994 are that on 9-7-1994 S. I. Bhagirath Sharma arresting officer along with other police personnel was on beat when he received information that a person was coming with Charus and could be arrested if prompt action is taken. The arresting Officer tried to procure witnesses but nobody agreed to become a witness and then all the police personnel gave their search of each other and then the arresting Officer mentioned that information cannot be given to any Gazette Officer. He then proceeded along with the informer to Nehru Hotel and taking shelter behind the Hotel they saw the applicant identified by the Informer who was arrested and was offered to be taken to Gazetted Officer for search, the offer was refused and then 100 gms of Charus was recovered.

(3.) THE main contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant Sri I. M. Khan is that since the information received was not reduced into writing hence the provisions of S. 42(1) of NDPS Act were not followed and bail should be allowed on this basis alone. The decision of this Court in Anil Singh v. State of U. P., 1994 UPGR 422 has been pressed into service in support of this argument. In that decision the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh, 1994 JT (2) SC 108 : 1994 UP Cr R 333, was considered and it has been remarked that because information received was not reduced into writing that ground was sufficient for bail. However the provisions of Section 43 of NDPS Act were not noticed which has resulted into aforesaid remarks and which gives an impression that in every case where information received is not reduced into writing the accused would become entitled to bail for non-compliance of provisions of Section 42(1) of the NDPS Act. In fact whether the provisions of Section 42 of NDPS Act would apply to the aforesaid facts or the provisions of Section 43 of NDPS Act would apply was a question relevant for the purpose, but was not considered.