High Court · 2025

4. FIR of the present case was lodged on 23.10.2024 against applicant and fourteen others including co-accused Narendra Sharma and Vijay Goyal, the proprietors of the alleged factory from where huge quantity of contraband alleged to have been recovered.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that however, applicant is named in the FIR alongwith fourteen others and as per allegation, from the factory, which was owned by co-accused Narendra Sharma and Vijay Goyal, huge quantity of contraband were recovered and as per prosecution, at the time of recovery, applicant was present at spot but applicant is not having any concern with the manufacturing of the alleged illegal drugs/contraband.

6. He further submits that applicant is just a poor employee in the factory of the co-accused Narendra Sharma and Vijay Goyal and this fact has specifically been averred in para 14 of the affidavit and however, learned A.G.A. has filed counter affidavit but in para 9, the averment made by applicant in para 14 of the affidavit has not been specifically denied and it is only mentioned in para 9 of the counter affidavit filed by the State that averment of para 14 of the affidavit are not admitted and applicant was present at spot.

7. He further submits that as applicant was working in the factory and was an employee in the factory of the co-accused Narendra Sharma and Vijay Goyal, therefore, his presence at spot was natural one and merely on the basis of the presence of the employee of the company/factory, it cannot be said that he also indulged in commission of the alleged offences alongwith its owner.

8. He further submits that applicant is having no previous criminal history.

9. He further submits that however applicant has also been challaned for offence under Section 111 B.N.S. i.e. organized crime but as applicant is not having any previous criminal history, therefore, at this stage, it cannot be said that he indulged in offence of organized crime.

10. He further submits that applicant is in jail in the present matter since 22.10.2024.

11. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submits, when the raid was conducted in the factory of the co- accused Narendra Sharma and Vijay Goyal then huge quantity of illegal drugs/contraband were recovered and at the time of recovery, applicant was also present at spot and he was arrested alongwith other co-accused, who were present over there but he could not dispute the fact that in para 14 of the affidavit, applicant categorically made an averment that he is just an employee in the factory of the co-accused Narendra Sharma and Vijay Goyal and being employee, he was present at spot.

12. He further could not dispute the fact that in para 9 of the counter affidavit, however, State did not admit the averment of para 14 made by the applicant in the affidavit filed in support of the instant bail application but State could not effectively rebut that applicant was not the employee in the factory of the co-accused Narendra Sharma and Vijay Goyal.

13. He further could not dispute the fact that applicant is not having any previous criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 22.10.2024.

14. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record of the case.

15. However, as per allegation, huge quantity of drugs/contraband were recovered from the factory of the co-accused Narendra Sharma and Vijay Goyal and applicant was also arrested from the spot as he was present over there but as per learned counsel for the applicant, applicant was an employee in the factory and being employee, he was present at the time when raid was conducted and in this regard a specific averment has been made by the applicant in para 14 of the affidavit filed in support of the instant bail application and however, State has filed counter affidavit but averment made in para 14 of the affidavit has not been effectively controverted by the learned A.G.A. and from the counter affidavit, it could only be reflected that as per the I.O., applicant was also present at spot when the raid was conducted but merely on this basis, it cannot be said that he was not the employee of the factory of the co-accused Narendra Sharma and Vijay Goyal .

16. Further, this Court finds merit in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that being employee in the factory from where recovery was made, the presence of the applicant at spot was natural one.

17. Further, however applicant is also challaned for offence under Section 111 B.N.S. i.e. organized crime but except the bald and verbal allegation that he is also member of the syndicate, there is no other cogent evidence in this regard against the applicant on record.

18. Further, applicant is not having any previous criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 22.10.2024.

19. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

20. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

21. Let the applicant- Lokendra Kushwah, be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

22. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

23. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. Order Date :- 13.2.2025 Zafar MOHAMMAD ZAFAR ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

4. FIR of the present case was lodged on 23.10.2024 against applicant and fourteen others including co-accused Narendra Sharma and Vijay Goyal, the proprietors of the alleged factory from where huge quantity of contraband alleged to have been recovered.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that however, applicant is named in the FIR alongwith fourteen others and as per allegation, from the factory, which was owned by co-accused Narendra Sharma and Vijay Goyal, huge quantity of contraband were recovered and as per prosecution, at the time of recovery, applicant was present at spot but applicant is not having any concern with the manufacturing of the alleged illegal drugs/contraband.

6. He further submits that applicant is just a poor employee in the factory of the co-accused Narendra Sharma and Vijay Goyal and this fact has specifically been averred in para 14 of the affidavit and however, learned A.G.A. has filed counter affidavit but in para 9, the averment made by applicant in para 14 of the affidavit has not been specifically denied and it is only mentioned in para 9 of the counter affidavit filed by the State that averment of para 14 of the affidavit are not admitted and applicant was present at spot.

7. He further submits that as applicant was working in the factory and was an employee in the factory of the co-accused Narendra Sharma and Vijay Goyal, therefore, his presence at spot was natural one and merely on the basis of the presence of the employee of the company/factory, it cannot be said that he also indulged in commission of the alleged offences alongwith its owner.

8. He further submits that applicant is having no previous criminal history.

9. He further submits that however applicant has also been challaned for offence under Section 111 B.N.S. i.e. organized crime but as applicant is not having any previous criminal history, therefore, at this stage, it cannot be said that he indulged in offence of organized crime.

10. He further submits that applicant is in jail in the present matter since 22.10.2024.

11. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submits, when the raid was conducted in the factory of the co- accused Narendra Sharma and Vijay Goyal then huge quantity of illegal drugs/contraband were recovered and at the time of recovery, applicant was also present at spot and he was arrested alongwith other co-accused, who were present over there but he could not dispute the fact that in para 14 of the affidavit, applicant categorically made an averment that he is just an employee in the factory of the co-accused Narendra Sharma and Vijay Goyal and being employee, he was present at spot.

12. He further could not dispute the fact that in para 9 of the counter affidavit, however, State did not admit the averment of para 14 made by the applicant in the affidavit filed in support of the instant bail application but State could not effectively rebut that applicant was not the employee in the factory of the co-accused Narendra Sharma and Vijay Goyal.

13. He further could not dispute the fact that applicant is not having any previous criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 22.10.2024.

14. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record of the case.

15. However, as per allegation, huge quantity of drugs/contraband were recovered from the factory of the co-accused Narendra Sharma and Vijay Goyal and applicant was also arrested from the spot as he was present over there but as per learned counsel for the applicant, applicant was an employee in the factory and being employee, he was present at the time when raid was conducted and in this regard a specific averment has been made by the applicant in para 14 of the affidavit filed in support of the instant bail application and however, State has filed counter affidavit but averment made in para 14 of the affidavit has not been effectively controverted by the learned A.G.A. and from the counter affidavit, it could only be reflected that as per the I.O., applicant was also present at spot when the raid was conducted but merely on this basis, it cannot be said that he was not the employee of the factory of the co-accused Narendra Sharma and Vijay Goyal .

16. Further, this Court finds merit in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that being employee in the factory from where recovery was made, the presence of the applicant at spot was natural one.

17. Further, however applicant is also challaned for offence under Section 111 B.N.S. i.e. organized crime but except the bald and verbal allegation that he is also member of the syndicate, there is no other cogent evidence in this regard against the applicant on record.

18. Further, applicant is not having any previous criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 22.10.2024.

19. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

20. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

21. Let the applicant- Lokendra Kushwah, be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

22. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

23. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. Order Date :- 13.2.2025 Zafar MOHAMMAD ZAFAR ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad