Allahabad High Court
Uday Shankar Yadav vs Narcotics Control Bureau , ... on 3 August, 2022
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 76
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4860 of 2021
Applicant :- Uday Shankar Yadav
Opposite Party :- Narcotics Control Bureau , Varanasi
Counsel for Applicant :- Ashish Kumar Singh,Pradeep Kumar Rai,Pradeep Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Ashish Pandey
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Heard Sri Kamal Krishna, Advocate assisted by Sri Pradeep Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ashish Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite party.
The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Uday Shankar Yadav, with a prayer to release him on bail in Special Trial No. 180 of 2019 arising out of Case Crime No. 12 of 2019, under Sections- 8/20, 27-A, 29 N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station- Narcotic Control Bureau (NCB), Varanasi, District- Varanasi, pendency of trial.
This is second bail application of the applicant.
The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by the coordinate Bench of this court by the order dated 27.11.2019. Since more than two years have passed and the aforesaid Bench is not sitting in the bail jurisdiction, this case has been listed before this Court as per order of Hon'ble The Chief Justice dated 27.04.2022.
The fresh ground for filing the second bail application is that three co-accused persons, namely, Daddan Yadav, Dhruv Nath and Jayram Vishwakarma, have been granted bail by this Court vide Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 14348 of 2020, 44876 of 2020 and 42080 of 2021, respectively by coordinate Benches of this Court. The applicant claims parity of role with them. He is languishing in jail since 20.03.2019 and has no criminal history to his credit.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre-trial stage who is involved in supplying contraband, therefore, the applicant does not deserve any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activity. The "reasonable grounds" mentioned in Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of N.D.P.S. Act mean something more than prima facie ground. It implies substantial probable causes for believing that accused is not guilty of the offence charged and points to existence of such facts and circumstances which are sufficient to hold that accused is not guilty.
However 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 arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, 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 the applicant involved in the aforesaid 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 that :-
(i) 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 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.
(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, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
Order Date :- 3.8.2022
Rohit
