Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation

1. Heard learned counsel for applicant, Mr. Digvijay Nath Dubey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Department of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence and perused the record.

2. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No. 5 of 2022 under Sections 8/20/29/60 N.D.P.S. Act, P.S. D.R.I., Gomti Nagar, District Lucknow.

3. As per contents of complaint, the incident is said to have taken place on 09.04.2022 at about 09:30 AM when a D.R.I. team acting on specific information supplied to them is said to have intercepted a truck bearing Registration HR 73 7421 in which the applicant was said to be traveling and recovery of 1316.52 Kgs. with 252 packets of cannabis is said to have been made from the said truck.

4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in charges levelled against him and in fact there is no evidence of allegations. Learned counsel for applicant has drawn attention to the fact that recovery memo has been made at the instance of alleged independent witnesses Raju Das and Kaali Kumar. It is submitted that complaint has been lodged on the basis of recovery memo. He has, thereafter, drawn attention to paragraphs-53 & 54 on the complaint which clearly indicates that subsequently the two independent witnesses could not be traced. It is, therefore, submitted that recovery memo being the basis of the complaint, therefore, cannot be proved in evidence since the authors thereof are untraced. It is submitted that applicant is under incarceration since 10.04.2022 with trial not yet having concluded. It is also submitted that applicant does not have any previous criminal history.

5. Mr. Digvijay Nath Dubey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Department of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence has opposed bail application with the submission that the mere untraceability of two independent witnesses would be immaterial for purposes of trial since not only the recovery but the complaint itself can be proved by other revenue officials who were present at the time of said recover. It is, however, admitted that applicant does not have any previous criminal history and is under incarceration for although three years with trial not yet having concluded. He, however, does not have any intimation with regard to current status of trial.

6. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 has specifically held that bail is to be a norm and an under-trial is not required to be in jail for ever pending trial. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment are as under :- "21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty." "27. This Court, time and again, has stated that bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. It has also observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution."

7. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties, prima facie, subject to evidence being led in trial, at this stage it appears that the entire gist of recovery memo is at the instance of independent witnesses as indicated hereinabove. The complaint also clearly indicates that two said independent witnesses are untraceable. The aspect, therefore, of proving the recovery memo at the stage of trial with evidence would be subject matter of consideration by the Trial Court. Learned counsel for informant has also drawn attention to the recovery memo and contradiction with the complaint to submit that the alleged samples drawn were sent for laboratory testing on 09.04.2022 itself as indicated in the recovery memo but as per the complaint, the same was sent for testing on 11.04.2022. There, therefore, appears to be contradiction in the date of sample being sent which would also be required to be adjudicated upon. Applicant admittedly is under incarceration since 10.04.2022 with trial not yet having concluded.

8. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, 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.

9. Accordingly bail application is allowed.

10. Let applicant- Iqbal involved in the aforesaid case crime 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 with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) 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. 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 of the Indian Penal Code. (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. is issued and the 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 of the Indian Penal Code. (iv) 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. 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. Order Date :- 9.5.2025 Satish SATISH KUMAR BHARATI SATISH KUMAR BHARATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench

1. Heard learned counsel for applicant, Mr. Digvijay Nath Dubey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Department of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence and perused the record.

2. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No. 5 of 2022 under Sections 8/20/29/60 N.D.P.S. Act, P.S. D.R.I., Gomti Nagar, District Lucknow.

3. As per contents of complaint, the incident is said to have taken place on 09.04.2022 at about 09:30 AM when a D.R.I. team acting on specific information supplied to them is said to have intercepted a truck bearing Registration HR 73 7421 in which the applicant was said to be traveling and recovery of 1316.52 Kgs. with 252 packets of cannabis is said to have been made from the said truck.

4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in charges levelled against him and in fact there is no evidence of allegations. Learned counsel for applicant has drawn attention to the fact that recovery memo has been made at the instance of alleged independent witnesses Raju Das and Kaali Kumar. It is submitted that complaint has been lodged on the basis of recovery memo. He has, thereafter, drawn attention to paragraphs-53 & 54 on the complaint which clearly indicates that subsequently the two independent witnesses could not be traced. It is, therefore, submitted that recovery memo being the basis of the complaint, therefore, cannot be proved in evidence since the authors thereof are untraced. It is submitted that applicant is under incarceration since 10.04.2022 with trial not yet having concluded. It is also submitted that applicant does not have any previous criminal history.

5. Mr. Digvijay Nath Dubey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Department of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence has opposed bail application with the submission that the mere untraceability of two independent witnesses would be immaterial for purposes of trial since not only the recovery but the complaint itself can be proved by other revenue officials who were present at the time of said recover. It is, however, admitted that applicant does not have any previous criminal history and is under incarceration for although three years with trial not yet having concluded. He, however, does not have any intimation with regard to current status of trial.

6. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 has specifically held that bail is to be a norm and an under-trial is not required to be in jail for ever pending trial. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment are as under :- "21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty." "27. This Court, time and again, has stated that bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. It has also observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution."

7. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties, prima facie, subject to evidence being led in trial, at this stage it appears that the entire gist of recovery memo is at the instance of independent witnesses as indicated hereinabove. The complaint also clearly indicates that two said independent witnesses are untraceable. The aspect, therefore, of proving the recovery memo at the stage of trial with evidence would be subject matter of consideration by the Trial Court. Learned counsel for informant has also drawn attention to the recovery memo and contradiction with the complaint to submit that the alleged samples drawn were sent for laboratory testing on 09.04.2022 itself as indicated in the recovery memo but as per the complaint, the same was sent for testing on 11.04.2022. There, therefore, appears to be contradiction in the date of sample being sent which would also be required to be adjudicated upon. Applicant admittedly is under incarceration since 10.04.2022 with trial not yet having concluded.

8. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, 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.

9. Accordingly bail application is allowed.

10. Let applicant- Iqbal involved in the aforesaid case crime 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 with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) 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. 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 of the Indian Penal Code. (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. is issued and the 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 of the Indian Penal Code. (iv) 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. 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. Order Date :- 9.5.2025 Satish SATISH KUMAR BHARATI SATISH KUMAR BHARATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench