Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:105673 Court No. - 67 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8517 of 2025 Applicant :- Randheer Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pushpendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J. 1-Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State. 2-By means of this bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S., 2023, the applicant, who is involved in Case Crime No. 0025 of 2025, under Sections 8/20(a) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, P.S. Atarra, District-Banda, is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial. 3-As per prosecution case, in brief, the informant Kuldeep Kumar Tewari (Station House Officer) got a first information report lodged at 02:15 O'clock on 17.01.2025 against the applicant Randheer Singh and two other persons namely Naggu Thakur and Kallu Singh under Section 8/20 (a) of the N.D.P.S. Act alleging inter alia therein that on 16.01.2025, when he along with S.I Deepak Kumar Saini, S.I. Sony Tyagi, Constable Shubham, Woman Constable Pooja Rawat and driver of Government Vehicle No. UP70G0348 Constable Vishwanath were on patrolling at Bari Nahar Pullia, Banda road, they received information from the informer that one Kallu will go to sell Ganja on his motorcycle shortly. In follow-up action, police personnel went near the house (hata) of Kallu where Ganja trees were standing. On seeing the police, one person escaped from the back door of the house whereas one was caught, who disclosed his name as Randheer Singh. On being asked about Ganja trees standing in his house (hata) and the person who ran away, Randheer Singh told that he and his son Kallu planted 25-30 trees of Ganja and when buds come out, he cuts the tree, dry and sett it. Today, Today, his son Kallu was going to sell some Ganja which they had dried and on seeing the police, he ran away. On further query, Randheer Singh told that in front of his house, Naggu Thakur also cultivates Ganja. On the said information, police immediately went to the house of Naggu Thakur and saw that he was drying some trees and some trees were standing in the house. Both of them were informed that process to get the Ganja trees cut and take possession thereof can be done before a Gazetted Officer. Both of them gave their consent. Both of them were informed that process to get the Ganja trees cut and take possession can be done before a Gazetted Officer. On which they gave their consent. Accordingly, consent letter was prepared and information was given to Gazetted Officer/Circle Officer Praveen Kumar, on which he reached at the spot. Thereafter, on demanding authority letter for planting and selling Ganja trees, apprehended persons could not show the same. Many people of the village came to the spot after hearing the noice around. When they were asked to testify, they went away without disclosing their names and addresses. Thereafter green Ganja trees recovered from both the houses were cut into small pieces along with branches and leaves one by one. The dry Ganja trees were also collected, cut into small pieces and weighed. Total 72 Kg green Ganja was found at the house of Randheer Singh, which was filled separately in six plastic bags and weighed. It was found that each bag contained 12kg Ganja. 50 grams of sample material was taken out from each bag and kept in separate polythene. Thereafter it was kept in white cloth and sealed. Similarly total 92 Kg 650 grams green Ganja was found at the house of Naggu Thakur, which was filled separately in eight plastic bags and weighed. It was found that seven bags contained 12kg and one bag contained 10kg 650 grams. The sample material was taken out from each bag and kept in separate polythene. Thereafter it was kept in white cloth and sealed. All the bags were also sealed. After completing all the required legal formalities, in presence of circle officer, accused Randheer Singh and Naggu Thakur were arrested. 4- It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is being prosecuted on account of recovery of 72 Kg green Ganja from his house, whereas prior to search and arrest of the applicant, no search warrant was obtained by the police and no information was given to the Magistrate or higher authority. In fact, nothing has been recovered from the house of the applicant but the same was recovered from another place, thereafter said Ganja has been planted showing false recovery from the house of the applicant. There is no independent witness of the said recovery, whereas recovery has been shown from public place. The provisions of Section 42,43, 50 and 52 of N.D.P.S. Act have not been followed by the prosecution. Co-accused Naggu Thakur has been granted bail vide order dated 13.06.2025 by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 7439 of 2025. Lastly it is submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case, who is languishing in jail since 03.02.2025 having no criminal history to his credit. In case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 5- Learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State opposed the prayer of bail of the applicant by contending that all the mandatory provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act have been complied with. There is no illegality in search and seizure of recovered Ganja. Considering the huge quantity recovered Ganja, bail application is liable to be rejected. 6- Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that:- i-Applicant was apprehended at the spot along with co-accused. ii-From the house of the applicant total 72 Kgs. green Ganja have been recovered, which is much more than commercial quantity. iii-Section 37 of N.D.P.S. Act is fully attracted. iii-Considering the quantity of recovered Ganja in this case Section 20 (C) of the N.D.PS. Act is applicable, hence alleged offence is punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than 10 years but which may extend to 20 years. iv-Under the facts of the case, the conscious and constructive possession of the accused applicant over the recovered green Ganja is apparent on record, hence in view of Section 35 read with 54 of the N.D.P.S. Act presumption shall also be drawn against the accused unless and until the contrary is proved. v-So far as Provisions of Section 42, 43, 50 and 52 of the N.D.P.S Act are concerned, it would be apposite to mention that as per prosecution case Station House Officer of police Station-Atarra, district Banda got an information from informer about the Ganja in question while he along with other police personnel were on patrolling duty. When Station House Officer and other police personnel reached at the place indicated by informer, then information given by the informer turned out to be correct. Thereafter Station House Officer after giving option to the apprehended persons in terms of the Section 50 of the NDPS Act, prepared a consent letter as per their choice and before proceeding further, gave an information to his higher authority / Circle Officer Praveen Kumar, who reached at the spot. Thereafter further proceedings were done in presence of Circle Officer Praveen Kumar (Gazetted Officer), hence there was no violation of the Provisions of Section 42 (2) of N.D.P.S. Act. So far as Section 43 of N.D.P.S. Act is concerned, the same is not attracted in the present case because seizure was not made from public place. So far as provisions of Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act are concerned, it is well settled that Section 50 of N.D.P.S. Act can be invoked only in cases where narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances are recovered as a consequence of body search of the accused. In the present case, huge quantity of Ganja has been recovered from the house of the applicant and co-accused, hence Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act would not be attracted. However, I find that the accused persons were informed about their legal rights to be searched in presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate, on which they gave consent. Thereafter information was given to Circle Officer Praveen Kumar, who reached at the spot and further proceedings was done in his presence. Hence, there is no violation of provisions of Section 50 of N.D.P.S. Act. The provisions of Section 52 of N.D.P.S. Act has also been complied with, hence submission of learned counsel for the applicant is not liable to be accepted. vi-No material has been brought on record by the applicant to show that there was any prior ill-will or enmity of the applicant with the police personnel concerned. vii-So far as plea of false implication is concerned, it is a stereo typed defence raised in every case, where accused are found in possession of contraband. viii-Nowadays, totally unconcerned people do not dare to become witness against the criminals and drug traffickers. The prosecution case cannot be vitiated due to want of the public witnesses, if reason of the same has been recorded in the recovery memo. ix-Huge quantity of 72 Kg green Ganja, which was found at the house of applicant-Randheer Singh cannot be planted. X-The applicant in paragraph no. 28 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application has mentioned that he has no criminal history whereas apart from this case, applicant has a criminal history of following two cases :- (a) Case Crime No. 77 of 1989, under Sections 363, 366 and 376 I.P.C., P.S. Atarra, District Banda. (b) Case Crime No. 72 of 2014, under Sections 3/25 Arms Act, P.S. Atarra, District Banda. xi-So far as order dated 13.06.2025 of co-accused Naggu Thakur, whereby he has granted bail by the co-ordinate bench in bail application no. 7439 of 2025 is concerned, here it would be appropriate to quote the said bail order, which reads thus:- "Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He next submitted that joint recovery of 94 Kilograms Green Ganja has been shown from the possession of applicant and two other co-accused. He further submitted that there is no compliance of mandatory provisions of N.D.P.S. Act. The applicant has no criminal history. There is also no possibility of applicant either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses. Applicant who is in jail since 17.01.2025, undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty, if granted. Learned A.G.A. could not dispute the facts so argued. Considering the material available on record, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, let the applicant-Naggu Thakur, involved in Case Crime No. 25 of 2025, under Sections 8/20(A) of N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station- Atarra, District -Banda, be enlarged on bail on his executing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned on the following conditions…..." On perusal of aforesaid bail order, I find that the aforementioned bail order dated 13.06.2025 has been passed without recording any finding in terms of the provisions provided under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the N.D.P.S. Act and no reason has been given in the said bail order while granting bail to co-accused Naggu Thakur. It appears that while arguing the said bail application, the wrong contention was raised on behalf of co-accused Naggu Thakur before the co- ordinate bench that 94 Kilograms Green Ganja has been shown from the possession of the applicant and other two co-accused. Whereas correct fact is that 72 Kg green Ganja was found at the house of Randheer Singh and 92 Kg 650 grams green Ganja was found from the exclusive possession/house of co-accused Naggu Thakur. One more distinguishable fact is that in the bail order of co-accused Naggu Thakur, it is mentioned that he has no criminal history, whereas applicant apart from this case has criminal history of two cases but he has suppressed the same in his bail application, hence in the light of judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Deepak Yadav vs. State of U.P. and Another, (2022) 8 SCC 559, I do not found good ground to extend the benefit of order dated 13.06.2025 of co-accused Naggu Thakur to the applicant. 7-In the case of State by the Inspector of Police Versus B. Ramu, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 4073, there was recovery of 232.5 kg of Ganja on search of the house of the accused Nos. 1 and 2. The third accused was indicated as being the conspirator for procurement/supply of Ganja so recovered, who had preferred anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., which was allowed by the High Court, thereafter, State of Tamil Nadu preferred Special Leave Petition (Cri.) against the order of the High Court before Hon'ble the Apex Court, which has been allowed setting aside the order of the High Court making following observations in Paragraph Nos. 11 and 12:- "11. In case of recovery of such a huge quantity of narcotic substance, the Courts should be slow in granting even regular bail to the accused what to talk of anticipatory bail more so when the accused is alleged to be having criminal antecedents." 12. For entertaining a prayer for bail in a case involving recovery of commercial quantity of narcotic drug or psychotropic substance, the Court would have to mandatorily record the satisfaction in terms of the rider contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act." 8-Considering the facts of the case as noted above, I find that prima-facie Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the N.D.P.S. Act does not stands satisfied. 9-In view of the above, the instant bail application lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 3.7.2025 Saurabh Digitally signed by :- SAURABH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad