Allahabad High Court
Surjeet Dey vs Union Of India Through D.R.I. ... on 26 August, 2022
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Reserved on 18.08.2022
Delivered on 26.08.2022
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15234 of 2021
Applicant :- Surjeet Dey
Opposite Party :- Union Of India Through D.R.I. Varanasi
Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Sharma,Amit Kumar Rai
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Dileep Chandra Mathur,Krishna Agarawal
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Heard Sri Amit Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Krishna Agarawal, learned counsel for the opposite party.
This bail application has been preferred by the accused-applicant, Surjeet Dey, who is involved in Criminal Case No.99 of 2018 (Union of India through Intelligence Officer D.R.I. Varanasi Vs. Shri Ajay Kumar Khilo and another), under Section 8/20 N.D.P.S. Act and 43 of N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station- Rajswa Anusuchana Nideshalaya Upkshtriya Ikai M-5/1, Gandi Nagar, Sigara, Varanasi, District- Varanasi.
This is a second bail application. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by coordinate bench of this court on 03.07.2019, which is not sitting in the present jurisdiction. Moreover two years have passed and hence as per order of Hon'ble the Chief Justice dated 27.04.2022, this bail application is listed before this court.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that this second bail application has been moved on the ground that the applicant is in jail since 21.04.2018. As yet the trial has not been concluded. He has brought on record the order-sheet of the court below which shows that PW-1 and PW-2 have been examined before the trial court. PW-1 has been examined again on the application of he defence filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. He has further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history and is not a habitual offender. He is languishing in jail since last more that four years. In case he found involved in this offence by the trial court he will face the consequence.
Sri Krishna Agarwal, learned counsel for the D.R.I., Varanasi / opposite party has vehemently opposed the bail application and has submitted that two prosecution witnesses have been examined and trial is on the verge of the conclusion. Therefore, there is no justification for enlarging the applicant on bail. He has submitted that the allegations against the applicant are serious.
After hearing rival contentions, this court finds that complaint was filed against the application on 09.08.2018. There are five witnesses named in the complaint and two of them have been examined in four years of pendency of the complaint. It is true that on account of disturbance caused by spread of novel corona virus functioning of the court were disturbed for considerable long time but keeping in view the fact that it is first implication of the applicant in the present case and he is not habitual offender, this court is inclined to enlarge the applicant on 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, (2007) 7 SCC 798, 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 applicant be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions-
The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.
(ii) 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.
(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) In case the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail 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.
(v) 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.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the complainant is free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this court.
Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
Order Date :- 26.08.2022
SS
