High Court · 2025

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 114 of 2024, under sections 8/20 N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station- Gomti Nagar, District- Lucknow. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant matter due to ulterior motive. He submits that as per the prosecution story, 2418 gms of charas is said to be recovered from the possession of the applicant, though there is no independent public eyewitness of the alleged recovery. He added that there is non-compliance of mandatory provisions of Section 50 of N.D.P.S. Act. He further added that the samples were taken on 15.3.2024 and those were received by the F.S.L. on 30.3.2024 i.e., after inordinate delay and there is no clarification that for the aforesaid period, at which place the samples were kept. He also submits that there are as many as nine fact witnesses and even after passing of a year, not a single witness has been examined. He next submits that the applicant has a case criminal history which has been explained properly and he is languishing in jail since 15.3.2024. He also submits that the charge-sheet has been filed and as such, there is no possibility that the applicant would tamper with the evidences or would threaten the witnesses and added that the applicant undertakes that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings. Per contra, learned AGA appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that there is a case criminal history of the applicant and the offences, which are charged against him, could affect the health of the public at large and, as such, he is not entitled for any relief. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires that the applicant is languishing in jail since 15.3.2024. The contraband substance i.e., charas alleged to be recovered from the possession of the applicant is slightest above the commercial quantity, though there is no independent public eyewitness of the alleged recovery. This Court has noticed the fact that the recovery was done on 15.3.2024, but the samples were admittedly received in the F.S.L. on 30.3.2024, which prima facie seems an inordinate delay and no explanation is given by the State side. It is also noticeable that the prosecution has failed to get examined the prosecution witnesses and there are as many as nine witnesses of fact. Thus, it seems that the trial would take substantial period of time. Further, the applicant has explained a case criminal history and the charge-sheet has been filed coupled with the fact that he has undertaken that if he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings. Considering the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case of bail. Let the applicant- Raj Kumar Yadav @ Deepak @ Raju involved in the aforementioned crime be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each (one local surety) in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:- (1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial; (2) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. He 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 of the Indian Penal Code; (3) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.; and (4) 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. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case. Order Date :- 11.3.2025 Shravan SHRAVAN KUMAR SHRAVAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 114 of 2024, under sections 8/20 N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station- Gomti Nagar, District- Lucknow. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant matter due to ulterior motive. He submits that as per the prosecution story, 2418 gms of charas is said to be recovered from the possession of the applicant, though there is no independent public eyewitness of the alleged recovery. He added that there is non-compliance of mandatory provisions of Section 50 of N.D.P.S. Act. He further added that the samples were taken on 15.3.2024 and those were received by the F.S.L. on 30.3.2024 i.e., after inordinate delay and there is no clarification that for the aforesaid period, at which place the samples were kept. He also submits that there are as many as nine fact witnesses and even after passing of a year, not a single witness has been examined. He next submits that the applicant has a case criminal history which has been explained properly and he is languishing in jail since 15.3.2024. He also submits that the charge-sheet has been filed and as such, there is no possibility that the applicant would tamper with the evidences or would threaten the witnesses and added that the applicant undertakes that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings. Per contra, learned AGA appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that there is a case criminal history of the applicant and the offences, which are charged against him, could affect the health of the public at large and, as such, he is not entitled for any relief. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires that the applicant is languishing in jail since 15.3.2024. The contraband substance i.e., charas alleged to be recovered from the possession of the applicant is slightest above the commercial quantity, though there is no independent public eyewitness of the alleged recovery. This Court has noticed the fact that the recovery was done on 15.3.2024, but the samples were admittedly received in the F.S.L. on 30.3.2024, which prima facie seems an inordinate delay and no explanation is given by the State side. It is also noticeable that the prosecution has failed to get examined the prosecution witnesses and there are as many as nine witnesses of fact. Thus, it seems that the trial would take substantial period of time. Further, the applicant has explained a case criminal history and the charge-sheet has been filed coupled with the fact that he has undertaken that if he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings. Considering the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case of bail. Let the applicant- Raj Kumar Yadav @ Deepak @ Raju involved in the aforementioned crime be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each (one local surety) in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:- (1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial; (2) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. He 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 of the Indian Penal Code; (3) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.; and (4) 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. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case. Order Date :- 11.3.2025 Shravan SHRAVAN KUMAR SHRAVAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench