Allahabad High Court
Rajendra Maurya vs State Of U.P. on 25 July, 2022
Bench: Ajit Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 77
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30374 of 2022
Applicant :- Rajendra Maurya
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Harendra Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.
By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in Case Crime No. 156 of 2022, under section 8/20 N.D.P.S. Act, P.S. Ghosi, district-Mau and is in jail since 11.4.2022, is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.
As per first information report, on the tipp of police informer, the police has arrested four accused persons, including present and recovered 52 kgs. of Ganja from their possession.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the only allegation in the first information report it is a joint recovery. There is no public witness of the alleged recovery. He has further submitted that the there has been no compliance of Section-50 of N.D.P.S. Act. He lastly submits that other co-accused Jumaila Begum, whose role was identical to that of present accused, has been granted bail by another Bench of this Court, vide order dated 4.7.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 25198 of 2022 and in view of the above, the applicant is also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and co-operate during trial.
The prayer for bail has been vehemently opposed by learned A.G.A.
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 the applicant, Rajendra Maurya be released on bail on his executing personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:-
1. The applicant will continue to attend and co-operate in the trial pending before the court concerned on the date fixed after release.
2. He will not tamper with the witnesses.
3. He will not indulge in any illegal activities during the bail period.It is further directed that the identity, status and residence proof of the sureties be verified by the authorities concerned before they are accepted.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the trial court will be at liberty to cancel the bail.
It is further directed that the identity, status and residence proof of the sureties be verified by the authorities concerned before they are accepted.
Order Date :- 25.7.2022
Faridul
