Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.30 seconds)
Documents citing Rahis Abdul Wahid vs N.C.B. on 5 January, 2012

Rashid @ Lallu vs Narcotics Control Bureau Mahanagar ... on 21 July, 2023

8. This Court while deciding CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4248 of 2021 in the case of Wahid Ali vs. N.C.B. decided on 12.07.2023, on similar grounds has extensively considered the scope of Section 50 of the Act read with Section 51and the mandate of Section 100 CrPC, to hold that on a reading of the said provision, it is incumbent that the witnesses to the recovery, in the present case Gazetted Officer, should necessarily affix his signatures. This Court also held that the entire gamut of allegations leveled by the respondent is of 'illegal possession' which is prohibited under Section 8 of the Act and is punishable under the Act. This Court had expressed its view that the foundation of 'illegal possession' is to be established by following the procedure as prescribed under Chapter V of the N.D.P.S. Act.
Allahabad High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - P Bhatia - Full Document

Raj Kumar Gupta vs Union Of India Thru. Narcotics Control ... on 27 October, 2023

8. This Court while deciding CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4248 of 2021 in the case of Wahid Ali vs. N.C.B. decided on 12.07.2023, on similar grounds has extensively considered the scope of Section 50 of the Act read with Section 51and the mandate of Section 100 CrPC, to hold that on a reading of the said provision, it is incumbent that the witnesses to the recovery, in the present case Gazetted Officer, should necessarily affix his signatures. This Court also held that the entire gamut of allegations leveled by the respondent is of 'illegal possession' which is prohibited under Section 8 of the Act and is punishable under the Act. This Court had expressed its view that the foundation of 'illegal possession' is to be established by following the procedure as prescribed under Chapter V of the N.D.P.S. Act.
Allahabad High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kadir Khan vs State Of U.P. on 25 July, 2023

4. He places reliance on an order passed by this Court in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 13590 of 2021 (Wahid Ali Vs. N.C.B.), wherein, in similar circumstances, the Gazetted Officer had not affixed his signature. This Court considered the mandate of Section 50 and 51 NDPS and Section 100 Cr.P.C. and found that not affixing signature clearly vitiates the search and renders the entire prosecution story suspicious. He further argues that the drawing of 10 gms. of sample was clearly not in terms of the mandate of the circulars prescribing the manner in which the samples are withdrawn. He specifically relies upon Circular No. 1 of 1988 to argue that the manner of one sample and the quantity of samples are clearly prescribed have not been followed. He further argues that the FSL in its report which is contained in annexure no. 5 to the bail application records that the 10 gms. sample sent by the raiding party was returned by the FSL by observing that they should send sample of 24 gms. It is also recorded that the signatures affixed were illegible. It is argued in response to the said letter of the FSL, fresh samples of 24 gms. were sent after about one month on 14.07.2023 as is clear from perusal of annexure-6. He argues that the samples of 24 gms. were neither drawn in the presence of applicant nor in the presence of any Magistrate and thus, the manner of sampling is not only contrary to the circulars, it is also renders the same to be suspect. In light of the said, he argued that applicant should be enlarged on bail, moreso, when recovery has been affected from the applicant.
Allahabad High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - P Bhatia - Full Document

Azad vs State Of U.P. on 31 July, 2023

5. Considering the submissions made at the bar, this court while deciding the application in the case of Wahid Ali (supra) had considered the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of MohdMuslim@ Hussain vs State (NCT of Delhi); 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 260, wherein, the Supreme Court considered the scope of Section 37 and the twin conditions prescribed therein. The Supreme Court recorded in para no. 18 to 20 as under:-
Allahabad High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - P Bhatia - Full Document

Jitendra vs State Of U.P. on 8 August, 2023

3. The counsel for the applicant argues that admittedly, the search was carried out in person from the applicant also and thus, it was mandatory to have observed the mandate of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, which has not been done. He further argues that there are no independent witnesses to the search, thus, there is a violation of Section 51 read with 100 Cr.P.C. He further argues that the sampling has not been done in the presence of Magistrate which violates the mandate of Section 52-A of the NDPS Act. He further argues that as per the FIR, 500 gms. each was drawn from 48 different packets which make the total sampling size of 24 kg, whereas, FSL report filed along with the counter affidavit indicates the sample analyzed by the FSL as 210 gms. He places reliance on the orders passed by this Court in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 13590 of 2022, in the case of Wahid Ali Vs. N.C.B. as well as judgment of the Supreme Court in the Case of MohdMuslim@ Hussain vs State (NCT of Delhi); 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 260. He argues that applicant has no criminal antecedents except the cases under the NDPS Act and thus, the applicant should be enlarged on bail.
Allahabad High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - P Bhatia - Full Document
1