Rakesh Verma S/o. Maniram Verma vs State of Chhattisgarh, Through Station House Officer, Police Station

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Chh) 519

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
SACHIN SINGH RAJPUT, J.
Rakesh Verma S/o. Maniram Verma & Ors. - Applicants
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, Through Station House Officer, Police Station – Khursipar, Durg - Non-Applicant
MCRC Nos. 5184, 5559, 6951 of 2022
Decided On : 30-11-2022

Advocates Appeared:
For the Applicants :Ms. Fouzia Mirza, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Rahim Ubwani, Ms. Indira Tripathi & Ms Priya Sharma.
For the Non-Applicant :Mr. Kashif Shakeel, Deputy Advocate General & Mr. Sushil Sahu, Panel lawyer.

Headnote:
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 22 (c), 27 A, (B), 8, 42, (2), 50, (4), 52, 57, 37 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 293(4)(e) - Bail Applications - Possession of Narcotic Substance - accused persons and other co-accused were caught in possession of narcotic substance – Held, Prima Facie from material so collected even scanty evidence of harbouring of offender is not available - Therefore on above analysis and relying upon above stated authorities, this court is of opinion that prima facie applicant have made out a case to come out rigours of section 27A of NDPS Act - As name of applicant is mentioned in memorandum statement of co-accused with regard to some money transaction hence at this stage it cannot be said that he could come out from rigours of section 27A of NDPS Act and same can be tested at stage of trial - In Nazir Ahmad Vs. The King Emperor, it has been held that where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way thing must be done in that way or not at all - In light of above discussions and authorities cited by counsel for parties particularly Baldev Singh (Supra) and Vijaysinh (Supra), applicant appears to have crossed hurdle of section 37 of NDPS Act - As a consequence M.Cr.C. of applicant are dismissed - M.Cr.C. of applicant for grant of bail is allowed - Bail is allowed.

ORDER :

Sachin Singh Rajput, J.

1. Since all the above bail applications are arising out of the same crime number, there fore, they are being decided by this common order.

2. The applicants have been arrested in connection with Crime No.140/2022, registered at Police Station Khursipar, District Durg (CG) for offence punishable under Sections 22 (c), 27 (B), & 8 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act') as per impugned order. However charge sheet has been filed under section 22(c), 27A, 8 of the NDPS Act.

3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 14.3.2022 police inspector of Police Station Khursipar, District Durg received a secret information through secret informant, acting upon which, he along with staff went to the place of incident and conducted search and seizure near Shyam Pharma in which the accused persons Rakesh Verma, Jaggu @ Jageshwar Nishad, Safaque Bano and other co-accused namely Ajay Agrawal were caught in possession of narcotic substance. From the possession of applicant - Rakesh Verma, total 24000 tablets of alprazolam and cash of Rs.400/- was seized, from the possession of applicant-Jaggu @ Jageshwar Nishad, 8640 capsules of spas trancan plus which contains tramadol and cash of Rs.600/- was seized, from the possession of applicant - Safaque Bano, total 9000 tables of alprazolam, 2016 capsules of spas trancan plus which contains tramadol and Rs.3000/- was seized and from the possession of co-accused Ajay Agrawal, 11700 tablets of alprazolam was seized.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and they have not committed the aforesaid crime. It is submitted that during conduction of search and seizure, mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not been complied with. It is further submitted that co-accused Ajay Agrawal from whose possession 11700 tablets of alprazolam was seized has been granted bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court in M.Cr.C. No.3022/2022 vide order dated 10.5.2022.

5. Ms. Fouzia Mirza, learned Senior Counsel with Mr. Rahim Ubwani, learned counsel for applicant - Safaque Bano in M.Cr.C. No. 6951/2022, submits that applicant - Safaque Bano is in jail since 15.3.2022 and she is 20 years B.Sc. student and she is having no criminal antecedents. She further submits that applicant - Safaque Bano had gone to shop in search of job where a raid was conducted and she was not involved in the crime. She also submits that there is no evidence of Section 27A of the NDPS Act to connect the present applicant having involvement of sale of the narcotic drug. She submits that memorandum of co-accused Ajay Agrawal was recorded and names of co-accused Rakesh Verma and Nitin Simpi was mentioned along with one Suman Ratlani with whom bank transaction and payment of money with respect to alleged drugs sale and purchase has been done. In memorandum of co-accused Ajay Agrawal, name of the present applicant is not reflected and hence, it is evident that the present applicant has only gone for search of job in that shop and however she has been falsely implicated. She further submits that there is total non-compliance of Sections 42 and 42(2) of the NDPS Act. In support of her argument, she relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court Chunna alias Mehtab Vs. State of M.P., (2002) 9 SCC 363 (para-2), State of Rajasthan Vs. Jagraj Singh alias Hansa, (2016) 11 SCC 687 (para-24) and Darshan Singh Vs. State of Haryana, (2016) 14 SCC 358 (para 8 and 13). She also submits that search notice panchnama under Section 50 of the NDPS Act of the applicant does not bear the signature of the applicant. Hence, there is total non-compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. For this purpose, she relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in State of Punjab Vs. Baldev Singh, AIR 1999 SC 2378 (paras-55 to 57). She submits that the applicant being lady and Section 50(4) of the NDPS Act requires that she should be searched by a female and search mem