IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that in bail proceedings, the sufficiency of evidence and procedural integrity are critical factors in determining whether to grant bail, particularly in cases involving narcotic drugs.

JUDGMENT :

Ravindra Maithani, J.

Applicant Yogendra Singh is in judicial custody in FIR No.140 of 2022, under Sections 8/20/60 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, P.S. Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar. He has sought his release on bail.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. According to the FIR, the applicant was riding on a motorcycle. He was signalled to stop but he did not stop. He had a bag on his shoulders. He entered into a room. He was apprehended with a bag with ganja in it. 4.1 kg ganja was recovered. FIR records that at that time the applicant has informed the police that in his room, he has kept ganja which was recovered and weighed. According to the police, ganja in commercial quantity was recovered from the two bags of the applicant, which was recovered from the room.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the recovery is false. The applicant is innocent. At the most, the recovery has been made from the bag which the applicant was holding may be taken against him at this stage, which is not the commercial quantity. He would submit that applicant has categorically stated that he was not the owner of the room. He has not taken the room on rent. He has no bag in any room. He would submit that the charge-sheet has been filed by the Investigating Officer in the month of September, 2022 and any landlord or any other witness has not been listed by the Investigating Officer to reveal that the applicant was either owner of the room or the room was taken by him on rent. He would submit that much thereafter State had filed a supplementary counter affidavit dated 13.06.2023 enclosing therein the statement of two persons to show as if the applicant was on rent of the room from which the recovery was made.

5. Learned State Counsel would submit that ganja in commercial quantity was recovered from the applicant.

6. It is the stage of bail. Much of the discussion at this stage is not expected of. To the extent of appreciating the controversy, the matter may be examined with the caveat that any observation, made at this stage, shall have no bearing at any subsequent proceeding or at the trial.

7. Admittedly, the charge-sheet was submitted in the case and on 02.09.2022, cognizance was taken by the Court. In response to the supplementary affidavit, the State has filed statement of two persons allegedly recorded in the month of April, 2023 which means that such statements were recorded much after filing of the charge-sheet.

8. The Court wanted to know as to how after filing of the charge-sheet, the Investigating Officer could record the statement of the witnesses. Admittedly, the landlord or any other persons were not listed witness in the charge-sheet. There may be one possibility that if the Investigating Officer conducts further investigation and informs about it to the court concerned. Learned State Counsel would submit that there is no record to reveal at this stage that any further investigation was done by the Investigating Officer. She would submit that merely in the supplementary case diary, statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer. How could this be done? Perhaps it would find deliberation during trial.

9. Having considered, this Court is of the view that it is a case fit for bail and the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.

10. The bail application is allowed.

11. Let the applicant be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned.