BA1/25/2021 of MAYA DEVI Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

First Bail Application No. 25 of 2021

Maya Devi

State of Uttarakhand

Versus

...Applicant

….Respondent

Present:- Mr. C.K. Sharma, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. S.S. Adhikari, D.A.G. alongwith Mr. Lalit Miglani, A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand.

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J.

Applicant Maya Devi is in judicial custody in FIR No. 07 of 2020, under Sections 8/20 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘the Act’), Police Station – Banbasa, District Champawat. She has sought her release on bail.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing.

3. According to the case, on 13.02.2020, at the Indo-Nepal border, Police party was on patrolling duty. At 06:30 AM, two women carrying bags were spotted, who when noticed police personnel, made suspicious movement. Both were questioned. One of them is the applicant. Both the women confessed that they had charas. They were given option under Section 50 of the Act. From bag of the applicant, 1.960 Kg. charas was recovered. According to the case, charas was also recovered from the other woman, who is co-accused.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant has been in jail for more than 18 months now; she is simply assigned the role of carrier by the Police, but, the main person has not even been interrogated; at the place, where, alleged recovery is made, there are CCTV cameras installed with three layers of security forces, but, those CCTV footages have not been produced by the Police. It is also argued that compliance of Section 50 of the

Act has not been made in letter and spirit because the first endeavour should have been made to produce the applicant for her search before Magistrate, who were readily available at short distance, instead, the search was made before Police gazetted officer. In fact, learned counsel for the applicant also argued that there have been directions by this Court to have videography of such recovery, but, videography has not been made in this case. Hence, it is argued that it is case fit for bail.

5. On the other hand, learned State Counsel would submit that it is not case for bail because charas more than in commercial quantity have been recovered from the applicant; she is not an Indian national, but, Nepali citizen. In case, she is released on bail, there are every chance that she would not appear to face the trial. Recovery was made in the presence of gazetted officer. Therefore, it is submitted that the bail application may be rejected.

6. Undoubtedly, in various cases, the Court have been impressing upon the arresting officers to get technical evidence or electronic evidence as far as possible. No such evidence is placed before the Court in the instant case. The recovery in the instance case has not been made from the personal search of the applicant, instead, it was found in bag, which the applicant was holding. Therefore, at this stage, it can safely be said that the provisions of Section 50 of the Act are not applicable in the instant case. Whether any CCTV footages could have been obtained, if yes, what it shows, these may perhaps be deliberated during trial. The charas which was recovered was more than commercial quantity.

7. Having considered the rival submissions, under the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that it is not case fit for bail and the bail application is liable to be rejected.

8. The bail application is rejected.

Ujjwal

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 18.06.2021