Allahabad High Court
Rajesh @ Guddu Belwar vs Union Of India on 4 February, 2010
Author: Ashwani Kumar Singh
Bench: Ashwani Kumar Singh
Court No. - 8 Case :- BAIL No. - 4469 of 2008 Petitioner :- Rajesh @ Guddu Belwar Respondent :- Union Of India Petitioner Counsel :- Anil Kumar Pandey,Gaurav Misra Respondent Counsel :- I.B. Singh Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri I.B.Singh, learned counsel for Union of India and perused the entire record of the case.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that one Triveni Singh was arrested from whose house 2.6 kg. of morphine was recovered. The accused Triveni Singh informed the raiding party that he supplied morphine to several persons including the applicant. The house of the accused applicant was also raided where the applicant's wife Sunita Devi confessed of having 600 grams of morphine. She also confessed that her husband accused applicant was involved in this business. She gave two packets to the raiding party, which, as alleged, was heroine. The packets were weighed and the weight of one packet was 350 grams and the other 200 grams. The total weight of morphine recovered was 450 grams. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the alleged recovery is fake and concocted and the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case.
However, Sri I.B.Singh, learned counsel for Union of India, on the other hand, submits that wife of the accused-applicant herself confessed in her statement that her husband was involved in the business of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. Learned counsel further submits that there was recovery of 450 grams of morphine from the house of the accused-applicant. It has also come in statement of Sunita, wife of accused applicant that her husband was involved in preparation of morphine. The applicant used to buy crude morphine from Triveni Singh who had earlier been arrested under N.D.P.S. Act.
Considering the arguments raised by learned counsel for both the parties, I do not find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected.
Order Date :- 4.2.2010 kvg/-