Reserved. Court No. - 49 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL U/S 374 CR.P.C. No. - 3955 of 2009 Petitioner :- Raj Kumar Pal Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Petitioner Counsel :- Pradeep Kumar Rai,R.S.Parihar,Vinod Pandey Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate,Sanjay Kuamr Singh (Spp) Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J.
Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged.
Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar Rai learned counsel for the appellant and the
learned A.G.A. for the State.
The appellant Raj Kumar upon being convicted for offence under Section
8/20 and 8/29 of the N.D.P.S. Act by judgement dated 30.06.2009 passed by
the Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. Court no. 3, Gorakhpur and sentenced
to under go 10 years R. I. and a fine of Rs. 1, 00, 000/- and in default of
payment of fine to further under go for 6 months R. I., is seeking enlargement
on bail during the pendency of the appeal.
Learned counsel for the appellant contended that although according to the
prosecution 196.2 Kg. of Ganja contained in nine packets was recovered from
the cabin of the truck which the appellant was driving and in which the other
three co-accused were sitting there is no proof on record of the fact that the
seized contraband articles belonged to the appellant or the same were
recovered from conscious possession of the appellant.
He further contended that out of the nine seized packets four packets were
drawn as samples for being sent for chemical examination but only two
packets were sent for chemical examination and actually only one packet was
returned to the court after chemical examination.
He next contended that according to the report of the chemical analyst the
weight of the sample which was received by him was 15 grams whereas the
weight of the sample sent for chemical examination was 25 grams. This
unexplained discrepancy in the weight of the sample drawn and sample
received by the Chemical analyst indicates that either the original sample
never reached the chemical analyst or the sample drawn had been tampered
with.
He lastly contended that the appellant who has no criminal antecedents to his
credit, is in jail for the last more than three years and since there is no
likelihood the present appeal being heard in near future, the appellant is
entitled to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of the appeal.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the court
below after appreciating the evidence on record and considering the testimony
of the prosecution witness convicted the appellant and sentenced him to ten
years R. I. and a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-
He next contended that considering the huge quantity of the contraband
articles (ganja) recovered from the possession of the appellant, the possibility
of false implication or false recovery is ruled out completely.
After having considered the respective submissions advanced by learned
counsel for the parties and perused the record of the appeal as well as
impugned judgment and keeping in view the huge quantity of the contraband
articles recovered from the truck which was being driven by the appellant I
am of the view that no good ground for enlarging the appellant on bail is
made out.
The prayer for bail is rejected at this stage.
Order Date :- 23.7.2010
YK