Blog

These are the three connected bail applications, which are arising out of the common incident and commission of the offence, which has chanced, on 18.03.2020, and this was held in the judgement passed by a single bench judge comprising The Hon’ble Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma, in the matter 1st Bail Application No. 636 of 2020 Sidharth Maithani Vs. The state of Uttarakhand, With 1st Bail Application No. 1516 of 2020 Kewal Chauhan Vs. The state of Uttarakhand, With 1st Bail Application No. 2206 of 2020, Anil Thakur Vs. The state of Uttarakhand.

Case Crime No.27 of 2020, wherein, Siddharth Maithani, is an accused, in Case Crime No.26 of 2020, wherein Mr Anil Thakur, is an accused and in Case Crime No.25 of 2020, wherein Mr Kewal Chauhan, was shown to be an accused, who was alleged to be jointly involved in the commission of the aforesaid offences.

 It was mentioned by the team of the police officials, after making the necessary entries in the GD, with their official vehicle, bearing Registration No.UK07 GD 0900, along with the drug kit, on receiving the information, about the probable movement of the accused persons, who are allegedly suspected to be involved in the commission of the offences, had reached at ISBT Bus Station, at 07:45 o’ clock.

Accordingly, the police team, which reached the ISBT Bus Station, much before the anticipated time, and were engaged in their routine searching of various vehicles, on seeing the white swift colour car, as referred, which was coming from “Saharanpur” side, the Police team, had stopped the car at “Asharodi Barrier”. It was contended in the FIR by the complainant, that the said car was found being driven by one of the co-accused persons namely Shri Kewal Chauhan, who was of about 45 years of age, and another 2 co-accused person also.

In the FIR, to have informed the accused persons, about their statutory rights, as envisaged under Section 50 of the NDPS Act, and it is only thereafter, that they have expressed their willingness to search for them, thus they were searched by the Gazetted Officer. Mentioned that:

• Shri Siddharth Maithani, the bail application to the first bail application, being BA 1st No.636 of 2020, who was found sitting on the rear seat of the car, it was found that he was carrying a plastic bag of silver colour, few articles were found accordingly- “Buprenorphine injection”, “Diazepam Injections”, “Phenergan injection”. i.e. totalling 240 injections of 2 ML each, was found recovered, from the possession of the applicant.
• Shri Kewal Chauhan of the Bail Application No.1516 of 2020, the following articles were found in his possession:- under his feet, there was a “plastic katta”, which was found totalling to 185 injections, out of which, it was found that in the “Katta”, There were 12 strips of 5 injections, in each strip of “Buprenorphine Injection”, “Diazepam Injections”, “Promethazine HCL Injections”, “IP Phenergan”.
• Shri Anil Thakur of the Bail Application No. 2206 of 2020, who was sitting by the side of the driver seat, and was found carrying a bag and the following articles were found in his possession:- “Buprenorphine Injection” totalling to 250 injections, “Diazepam Injections” totalling to 300 injections, “ Phenergan Injections”.

It means, that overall contraband of a total, 140 strips with 700 injections of 2 ML.

All these three applicants to the bail applications have filed their respective bail applications before the Special Judge, NDPS, Dehradun, and the same has been rejected by the respective orders, which were rendered by the Special Judge, NDPS, Dehradun on 21.03.2020.

The Hon’ble High Court perused the facts and the arguments presented, and thereby, opined that -“After hearing the learned counsel for the applicants at length, learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the findings, which has been recorded by the learned Special Judge, NDPS Act, Dehradun, while rejecting the bail application of the applicants, that the contraband recovered was of a small quantity, and Section 37 of the NDPS Act, would not apply, but the findings recorded were, that the recovery was of the commercial quantity. Thus since the recovery of the contraband, being above commercial quantity, the implications of Section 37, of the Act would come into play. Hence the bail applications for the aforesaid reasoning are rejected ”.

Click here for judgment

Judgment Reviewed by: Mandira BS