Allahabad High Court
Ram Janam Yadav vs State Of U.P. on 19 July, 2021
Bench: Chandra Dhari Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 14
Case :- BAIL No. - 11003 of 2020
Applicant :- Ram Janam Yadav
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ganesh Nath Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.
The accused-applicant is involved in F.I.R. No.228 of 2020, under Section 8/20 of NDPS Act, P.S. Ibrahimpur, District Ambedkar Nagar.
As per the FIR the prosecution story is that on 13.10.2020 Police Mukhbir informed the police that one Truck ten tyre bearing No. JH 09 AA 6571 is stationed near Sigradi Dhaba, in which unauthorized Ganga is loaded and behind that Truck, a white colour Scorpio Car bearing No. BR 04 PA 4763 is parked, and the Ganja is being loaded in the Scorpio from the Truck. On the information of the Mukhbir, the police team raided over the said place and found 2 quintal 39 kgs and 130 gms of Ganja from the Truck and about 48 Kgs of Ganja from Scorpio. From the place, police personnel arrested seven accused persons, including the present applicant.
Learned counsel has submitted that from the accused-applicant only Rs.700/- was recovered. It is submitted that the co-accused Sudama Ray has taken name of the present applicant stating that the said recovered Ganja was being transported for the present applicant. It is submitted that this is admitted case that the vehicles from which the Ganja was recovered were not owned by the present applicant. It is submitted that the prosecution has failed to collect any evidence or material against the applicant to corroborate the allegations made by the co-accused Sudama Ray that the said transaction was made at the behest of the present applicant. It is submitted that the applicant is innocent and has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR. It is also submitted that there is no proper compliance of provision of Section 50 NDPS Act as the police had only sent one whole bundle as sample for chemical examination. Regular panchnama was not done or instead only one sample was sent. It is further submitted that the said raid was conducted at a public place but no independent witness of recovery was found.
Learned counsel has submitted the present applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. The applicant does have criminal history of one case in which he has already been enlarged on bail. The applicant is languishing in jail since 13.10.2020. In case he is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall abide by all the conditions imposed by this Court while granting bail.
Learned counsel has further submitted that co-accused Sudama Ray has already been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 02.06.2021 passed in Bail No.10666 of 2020.
Per Contra, learned Additional Government Advocate has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that there is a recovery of about 48 Kgs Ganja from Scorpio Car and 2 quintal 39 kgs and 130 gms from Truck during the police raid.
Learned Additional Government Advocate has relied upon a judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab - AIR 2011 SC 964 and submitted that since no recovery has been made from the body of the applicant, therefore, question for proper compliance of provision of Section 50 of NDPS Act does not arise.
It is further submitted that as per requirement of Section 37(b) of NDPS Act, the objection of the public prosecutor should be taken on record in the case of commercial quantity and after the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that accused is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail, then Court may grant bail.
Shri Singh has submitted that there is a specific allegation against the present applicant by the co-accused Sudama Ray that the said transaction was being carried out at the behest of the present applicant.
I have heard learned counsel for the applicant; Shri Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate and perused the record including the FIR.
It is the admitted fact that about 48 Kgs Ganja was recovered from Scorpio Car and 2 quintal 39 kgs and 130 gms from the Truck. There is no other material on record to corroborate the allegation as made by the co-accused Sudama Ray against the applicant that the present applicant is involved in any transaction of the said Ganja which were recovered during police raid. The State has also failed to substantiate the allegation that the applicant can be convicted in the instant case for an offence punishable under Section 8/20 of the NDPS Act. Thus, the twin conditions of Section 37(b) of NDPS Act is satisfied.
In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court finds it a fit case for grant of bail. Thus, the instant bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant Ram Janam Yadav be released on bail in aforesaid first information report number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties required by the Court below concerned with the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and 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.
2. 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.
3. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail 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.
4. 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 default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.
5. The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.
6. The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel or the party concerned.
7. The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 19.7.2021
nishant/-
