High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 91 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 47742 of 2021 Applicant :- Sanjay Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Thru Secretary Home Govt. Up. Lknw. Counsel for Applicant :- Alok Singh,Malay Prasad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Ms. Tanya Makkar. learned Advocate holding brief for Sri Malay Prasad, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State through video conferencing and perused the material placed on record. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 333 of 2021, U/S 8/20 of The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station- Sarai Inayat, District Prayagraj, during the pendency of trial. As per prosecution story, the applicant and co-accused person, namely, Om Prakash Yadav @ Pappu are said to have been arrested at the spot and two other accused persons, namely, Raju Jaiswal and Manoj Jaiswal @ Nibbu Jaiswal are stated to have run away from the scene of occurrence. The contraband of 75 kg of ganja is said to have been recovered from the trunk of Swift Dzire car bearing no. MH02CR1658. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and to victimize him. He has further stated that applicant has nothing to do with the said car and he was standing at the crossing and due to an altercation with the police personnel, he has been falsely implicated in the case. Learned counsel has next stated that there is no compliance of Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the recovery of the contraband article is of commercial quantity. He has further stated that the recovery has been made from trunk of the car, so there is no need of compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that if the contraband recovery is apportioned equally among the four accused persons, it shall fall below the commercial quantity. The applicant is languishing in jail since 17.9.2021. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. The Apex Court in the Case of Union of India vs. Shiv Shankar Keshari, (2007) 7 SCC 798 has held that the court while considering the application for bail with reference to Section 37 of the Act is not called upon to record a finding of not guilty. It is for the limited purpose essentially confined to the question of releasing the accused on bail that the court is called upon to see if there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and records its satisfaction about the existence of such grounds. But the court has not to consider the matter as if it is pronouncing a judgment of acquittal and recording a finding of not guilty. Considering the facts of the case and keeping in mind, the ratio of the Apex Court's judgment in the case of Union of India vs. Shiv Shankar Keshari (supra) larger mandate of Article 21 of the constitution of India, the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused-applicant, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interest of the public/ State and other circumstances, but without expressing any opinion on the merits, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. Let the applicant- Sanjay Yadav, who is involved in Case Crime No. 333 of 2021, U/S 8/20 of The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station- Sarai Inayat, District Prayagraj, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in Court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the Trial Court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A IPC. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. Order Date :- 2.2.2022 Shalini Digitally signed by KRISHAN PAHAL Date: 2022.02.04 12:21:06 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad