Smt. Sonia vs State of Uttarakhand

Dharam Veer, J.—Heard Sri Pankaj Chaturvedi, Adv. i/b Sri Vijay Khanduri, Adv. for the applicant and Sri Amit Bhatt, learned Addl. GA for the State.

In brief the prosecution case is that on 30.6.2010 at about 8 PM, from the possession of the present applicant and co-accused, 134.800 kilograms of Ganja was said to be recovered.

Learned Counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated and the recovery is a joint recovery. Contrary to those arguments, learned Addl. GA argued that though the recovery is a joint one, but from the possession of the present applicant and other co-accused, 134.800 kilograms of Ganja was recovered. He further submitted that the commercial quantity of the recovered contraband is 20 kilograms but the recovery is of about 134.800 kilograms which is much more than the commercial quantity. He further submitted that as per Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act, the applicant is not entitled for bail as there are reasonable grounds to believe that if the applicant would be released on bail, he is likely to commit the same offences while on bail. He, on the basis of the counter affidavit filed by the State, further submitted that during the course of investigation, the I.O. also recorded the statements of Bhagat Singh (complainant), Dhyan Singh and Balwan Singh Rana u/s 161 Cr.P.C., who in their examination, have fully corroborated the prosecution version.

After considering the above-said facts and circumstances, on hearing learned Counsel for the parties, contents of the FIR, perusal of the counter affidavit and the statements annexed with it i.e. of Bhagat Singh, Dhyan Singh and Balwant Singh Rana u/s 161 Cr.P.C., as well as other papers available on record particularly considering the fact that the recovery made from the present applicant is more than the commercial quantity, it is not a fit case where the applicant is entitled for bail.

The bail application is liable to be rejected and is accordingly rejected.