IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF

ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH, LUCKNOW

Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.-876 (Bail) of 2023

Mo.Raj aged about 18 years, S/O Furkan, R/O Village Tikra

Murtaja, Police Station-Jaidpur, District Barabanki, Uttar Pradesh
......Applicant/Accused
Versus

Narcotics Control Bureau (Union of India) …....Opp. Party

INDEX

S.No. PARTICULARS PAGE No.

1. Application for taking counter affidavit on
record.
2. Application for rejection of bail
3. Counter Affidavit in support of rejection
of bail
4. Annexure No 1
Copy of Recovery memo.
5. Annexure No 2 & 3

6. Annexure No 4

7. I.D. Proof

Lucknow
Dated:
(Akhilesh Kumar Awasthi)
Advocate SPP, NCB
A.O.R.-B/A-0366
Mob-9335910881
IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF
ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH, LUCKNOW
Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.-876 (Bail) of 2023

Mo.Raj aged about 18 years, S/O Furkan, R/O Village Tikra

Murtaja, Police Station-Jaidpur, District Barabanki, Uttar Pradesh
......Applicant/Accused
Versus

Narcotics Control Bureau (Union of India) …....Opp. Party

NCB Case No – 28/2022

U/S- 8/21/29 of NDPS Act, 1985
District- Lucknow

APPLICATION FOR TAKING COUNTER AFFIDAVIT

ON RECORD

For the facts, reasons and circumstances as stated in the

accompanying Counter Affidavit, it is just & expedient in the

interest of justice that the Counter Affidavit may be taken on

record.

Lucknow
Dated:
(Akhilesh Kumar Awasthi)
Advocate SPP, NCB, Lucknow
A.O.R.-B/A-0366
Mob-9335910881
IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF
ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH, LUCKNOW
Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.-876 (Bail) of 2023

Mo.Raj aged about 18 years, S/O Furkan, R/O Village Tikra

Murtaja, Police Station-Jaidpur, District Barabanki, Uttar Pradesh
......Applicant/Accused
Versus

Narcotics Control Bureau (Union of India) …....Opp. Party

NCB Case No – 28/2022

U/S- 8/21/29 of NDPS Act, 1985
District- Lucknow

APPLICATION FOR REJECTION OF BAIL

That for the facts, reasons and circumstances as stated in

the accompanying Counter Affidavit, it is most respectfully

prayed to this Hon’ble Court that it may kindly be pleased to

reject the bail application of applicant in the interest of justice.

Lucknow
Dated:

(Akhilesh Kumar Awasthi)

Advocate SPP, NCB
A.O.R.-B/A-0366
 Mob-9335910881

IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF

ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH, LUCKNOW
**************
COUNTER- AFFIDAVIT
(ON BEHALF OF OPPOSITE PARTY)
IN
Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.-876 (Bail) of 2023
(Under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code)

Mo.Raj aged about 18 years, S/O Furkan, R/O Village Tikra

Murtaja, Police Station-Jaidpur, District Barabanki, Uttar Pradesh
......Applicant/Accused
Versus

Narcotics Control Bureau (Union of India) …....Opp. Party

NCB Case Crime No – 28/2022

U/S- 8/21/29 of NDPS Act, 1985
P/S- N.C.B.
District-Lucknow

AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF REJECTION OF BAIL

APPLICATION

I, _____________________aged about____ years, son of Sri

________________________, posted as Intelligence officer

NCB, Lucknow R/o-B-912, Sector-A CID Colony, Mahanagar

Lucknow, Education- ______________, Religion- ___________,

Occupation – Service.The deponent do hereby solemnly affirm

and state on oath as under:-

1. That the deponent is presently posted as Intelligence Officer

in NCB Lucknow and he has been authorized by the

competent authority to file the instant Counter Affidavit on

behalf of the opposite party in the aforesaid case. The

deponent is enclosing his Identity Card as his identity.

2. That the deponent has fully gone through the above noted bail

application, its annexures and the affidavit file in support

thereof and have understood the contents thereof. Now he is

in a position to give the reply of the same, which are as under.

3. That the contents of Paragraph No. 1 of the affidavit filed in

support of the bail application (herein after referred as

affidavit) need not to be controverted due to want of

knowledge.

4. That the Contents of Para No. 2 of the affidavit need no

comment due to want of Knowledge.

5. That the content of Paragraph 3 & 4 of the affidavit are

denied. It is submitted that 500 gm heroine has been

recovered from the conscious knowledge & possession of the

accused/applicant in presence of Harish Kumar,

Superintendent NCB (Gazetted Officer), from the bag of

accused/applicant which is much more than the commercial

quantity. The case of the accused/applicant comes under the

 purview of Section 37 of NDPS Act 1985. The

accused/applicant is actively involved in the illegal trafficking

of Heroin and there is no motive or reason demonstrated on

record to false implication of the accused/applicant by NCB

team. This all has been concocted by the accused/applicant to

save himself from the clutches of the law. The investigation of

this case is going on and for detailed prosecution story

recovery memo/search cum seizure memo is here by annexed

as Annexure No.1

6. That the contents of paragraph 5 & 6 of the affidavit are

strictly denied, it is submitted that 500 gm heroine has been

recovered from the conscious knowledge & possession of the

accused/applicant in presence of Harish Kumar,

Superintendent NCB (Gazetted Officer), from the bag of

accused/applicant which is much more than the commercial

quantity and the accused/applicant has committed the offence

against society at large. So, he is not entitled to get the

sympathy of the Hon’ble High Court. There is no motive or

reason demonstrated on record to false implication of the

accused/applicant by NCB team. This all has been concocted

by the accused/applicant to save himself from the clutches of

the law.

7. That the contents of paragraph 7 of the affidavit are denied, it

is submitted that the NCB team tried to obtain independent

witnesses from the passerby but they all refused to become

 independent witness in search and seizure citing their

personal reasons. It is pertinent to mention here that The

Hon’ble Supreme Court has settled that “Evidence of police

witnesses cannot be discarded merely on the ground that

they belong to police force and interested in the

investigation and their desire to see the success of the

case” in the matter of “Baldev Singh Vs. State of Haryana”

vide Criminal Appeal No.-167/2006.” And in a latest Three

Judges bench judgment of “Raveen Kumar Vs State of

Himanchal Pradesh”, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2187-

88 of 2011 delivered on 26th Oct, 2020 Hon’ble Apex Court

has settled as under:-

“…… C) Need for independent witnesses

19. It would be gainsaid that lack of independent witnesses

are not fatal to the prosecution case. However, such
omissions cast an added duty on Courts to adopt a greater-
degree of care while scrutinizing the testimonies of the
police officers, which if found reliable can form the basis of
a successful conviction.”

8. That the contents of paragraph 8 of the affidavit are denied,

it is submitted that motor cycle no. UP32ZEJ075 belongs to the

co-accused Mohd. Shafeeq but the accused/applicant was

actively involved in the illegal trafficking of 500 gm

Heroine/Alprazolam with co-accused Mohd. Shafeeq which is

much more than the commercial quantity and against the society

at large and the accused/applicant along with other co-accused

Mohd. Shafeeq are actively involved in the socio-economic

offence. This all has been concocted by the accused/applicant to

save himself from the clutches of the law.

9. That the contents of paragraph 9 of the affidavit are denied,

it is submitted that the NCB team has duly complied the

provisions of NDPS act u/s 42/50/52/55/57 of NDPS act 1985

during the search seizure & investigation. The accused/applicant

should reveal how NCB team has not complied with mandatory

provision of section 42/50/52/55/57 of NDPS act 1985. There is

no doubt in prosecution case, the contraband was recovered in

presence of Mr Harish Kumar, Superintendent of NCB (Gazetted

Officer) and the information was reduced in to writing by NCB

officials. Detailed information of arrest u/s 57 of NDPS act has

been sent to senior officer of NCB with in time by Surendra

Kumar, intelligence Officer NCB Lucknow on 18/11/2022 with in

time, according to law. The compliance u/s 42 & 57 is here by

annexed with this counter affidavit as annexure no. 2 &

annexure no. 3.

10. In reply of contents of para 10 of the affidavit, it is

submitted that the additional session judge court no. 11 Special

Judge NDPS Lucknow has rightly rejected the bail application of

accused/applicant.

11. That the contents of paragraph 11 of the affidavit are

denied, it is submitted that 500 gm heroine has been recovered

from the conscious knowledge & possession of the

accused/applicant in presence of Harish Kumar, Superintendent

NCB (Gazetted Officer), from the bag of accused/applicant which

is much more than the commercial quantity and the

accused/applicant has committed the offence against society at

large. So, he is not entitled to get the sympathy of the Hon’ble

High Court. There is no motive or reason demonstrated on

record to false implication of the accused/applicant by NCB team.

This all has been concocted by the accused/applicant to save

himself from the clutches of the law. Investigation of the case is

going on and all material cogent & corroborative evidence is

available against the accused/applicant

12. In reply of paragraph 12 of the affidavit, it is submitted that

all material cogent & corroborative evidence is available against

the accused/applicant and 500 gm of Heroine has been

recovered from the conscious knowledge & possession of

accused/applicant which is much more than the commercial

quantity. This all has been concocted by the accused/applicant to

save himself from the clutches of the law.

13. That the contents of paragraph 13 of the affidavit are

denied, it is submitted that the investigation of the case is going

on and all material cogent & corroborative evidence is available

against the accused/applicant, prima-facie case is made out

against the accused/applicant. If the accused/applicant is

released on bail he will again be involved in illegal trafficking of

contraband.
 It is pertinent to mention here that 500 gm

Alprazolam/Heroine has been recovered from the

conscious knowledge & possession of the

accused/applicant on 16/11/2022 and the accused

applicant was produced before remand court on

17/11/2022 and the sample was taken from recovered

contraband on 17/11/2022 with the permission of the

additional sessions judge NDPS Lucknow and the same

sample has been sent to Central Revenues Control

Laboratory, Pusa road, New Delhi on 18/11/2022 with in

time, according to law and Central Revenues Control

Laboratory on the basis of chemical chromatography

and spectroscopic examination, concluded that the

sample under reference answers positive test for

Alprazolam. The CRCL report is being annexed here

with as annexure no. 4.

14. That the contents of paragraph 14 of the affidavit are denied,

it is submitted that investigation of the case is going on and

the investigation officer of this case is trying to obtain the

criminal history of accused/applicant, and the

accused/applicant is actively involved in the illegal trafficking

of contraband which is much more than the commercial

quantity and the accused/applicant has committed offence

against the society

 15. That the contents of paragraph 15, 16 & 17 of affidavit are

denied, it is submitted that the accused/applicant has

committed the offence against the society & prima-facie case

is made out against the accused/applicant. All the material

cogent & corroborative evidence is available on record against

the accused/applicant. If the accused/applicant is released on

bail, he will again be involved in illegal trafficking of the

contraband.

13. 16. That the contents of paragraph 18 of the affidavit are denied,

it is it is submitted that the accused/ applicant is not entitled to be

released on bail, as considering the facts, circumstances and

material on record, it cannot be said that the accused/ applicant

is not guilty of an offence rather the act Any averment contrary to

the same are not admitted. The applicant is being prosecuted for

the offence under section 8/20 of N.D.P.S Act, and section 8/20

of N.D.P.S Act is made out against the accused/ applicant, and

all material and cogent evidence is available against the

accused/ applicant on record and total 500 gm alprazolam has

been recovered from the conscious possession and knowledge

of the accused/applicant from his bag, which is more than

commercial quantity. The act and conduct of the applicant fully

comes under the purview of the illicit trafficking under the

N.D.P.S Act 1985 and therefore the provisions of Section 37 of

the N.D.P.S Act are fully attracted in this case and as such in

view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court In

"State of Kerala Etc. Versus Rajesh etc., (Criminal Appeal

No. 154-157 of 2020, Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.(s) 7309-

7312 of 2019) decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court on

24.01.2020" also settled that “the persons involved in the

illicit trafficking are hazardous for the society at-large and

they are not entitled for any sympathy under the law and the

twin conditions provided in sec 37 of NDPS Act, 1985 must

be satisfied while granting the Bail, as negation of Bail is

rule and grant of Bail is exception.” In case if the applicant is

released on bail, there is every possibility of absconding by the

applicant and again indulging in similar kind of illicit trafficking,

hence the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail and his

bail application is liable to be rejected in the interest of justice.

Lucknow

Dated Deponent

VERIFICATION

I, the above named deponent do hereby verify that the contents

of this affidavit para 1 to 20 are true to my personal knowledge.
No part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed.
So, help me God.

Lucknow
Dated Deponent
 I identify the deponent who has
signed before me.

(Akhilesh Kumar Awasthi)

Advocate

Solemnly affirmed before me on at a.m./p.m. by

the deponent who has been identified by Akhilesh Kumar
Awasthi Advocate, High Court.

I have myself satisfied after examining the deponent that he has

understood with the contents of this affidavit paragraphs which
have been read over and explained to him by me.

OATH COMMISSIONER