Allahabad High Court
Mohammad Salman vs Union Of India Thru Dri Varanasi And ... on 21 October, 2019
Author: Manju Rani Chauhan
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 75 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 22245 of 2019 Applicant :- Mohammad Salman Opposite Party :- Union Of India Thru Dri Varanasi And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vinay Saran,Ali Hasan,Istiyaq Ali,Pradeep Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- Krishna Agarawal, ,G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard Sri Vinay Saran, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ali Hasan and Sri Pradeep Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Krishna Agarawal, learned counsel for opposite party no.1, Sri P.K. Shahi, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record of the present bail application.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant ? Mohammad Salman with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No.36A of 2018, under Sections 8/21/27A and 29 of N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station DRI Varanasi, District Varanasi.
It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case due to ulterior motive. It is next argued that the applicant was neither arrested from the spot nor any recovery has been made from him. The applicant had only booked the ticket of co-accused Attauddin for going from Lucknow to Kolkata and during the travel of the co-accused from Lucknow to Kolkata no transaction was done amongst the accused mentioned in the complaint. It has further been argued that there is nothing on record including the mobile number of the applicant which could connect him with the other co-accused persons from whom recovery of 7150 gms. of Heroin has been shown. Though the return ticket was from Kolkata to Lucknow, but the co-accused travelled by train and de-boarded the train at Varanasi where he met co-accused Ashraf. It is argued that only role of the applicant is of booking the tickets for co-accused Attauddin. No test identification parade has been done in order to show that Sanjay and the applicant are the same person. There is no compliance of mandatory provisions of Section 50 of N.D.P.S. Act and also Sections 42, 43, 52-A and 57 of N.D.P.S. Act. It is next contended that there is no possibility of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and he is languishing in jail since 01.04.2019. Accordingly, he requests for bail.
Per contra, learned counsel for opposite party no.1 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State has vehemently opposed the bail prayer of the applicant and has submitted that total 7150 gms. of Heroin, later chemically confirmed as Morphine by C.R.C.L., New Delhi of worth of Rs.21,45,00,000/- (twenty one crore and forty five lacs) has been recovered from the accused persons by Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Varanasi. From the confessional statement of co-accused Attauddin, it is clear that the applicant is the key person who has financed and abetted the illicit trafficking of narcotics substance "Heroin" and entered into criminal conspiracy in the illicit trafficking of the narcotics substances and has purportedly harboured the alleged offenders who are the co-accused Attauddin, Smt. Soma Devi and Ruma Biswas for omission and commission of offence punishable under the provisions of N.D.P.S. Act, 1985. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.1 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State also stated that there are twin conditions which have to be seen as provided under Section 37 of N.D.P.S. Act while considering the bail application of the applicant. Learned counsel for opposite party no.1 has also relied upon judgments of Apex Court in the case of Satpal Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2018) 13 SCC 813; Union of India Vs. Rattan Mallik alias Habul (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 831; Narcotics Control Bureau Vs. R. Paulsamy (2000) 9 SCC 549. He also placed reliance in the case of Union of India Vs. Ram Samujh and another, (1999) 39 ACC 643, where Hon'ble the Supreme Court has 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."
It is also argued that bail applications of co-accused Attauddin, Soma Devi and Rooma Vishvash have already been rejected by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 17.12.2018 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application Nos.46248, 46251 and 46257 of 2018 respectively. 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.
Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for opposite party no.1, 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 stands rejected.
However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the aforesaid case expeditiously from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, if there is no other legal impediment.
Order Date :- 21.10.2019 Anand Sri./-