Allahabad High Court
Rajendra Sarraf vs Union Of India on 28 July, 2022
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 76
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26535 of 2021
Applicant :- Rajendra Sarraf
Opposite Party :- Union of India
Counsel for Applicant :- Chandra Prakash Singh,Mamta Singh,Saurabh Yadav,Shivam Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Ashish Pandey,Pranay Krishna
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Heard Sri V. P. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri C. P. Singh, learned counsel for applicant and Sri Ashish Pandey, learned counsel for N.C.B. and perused the record.
This bail application has been preferred by the accused-applicant, Rajendra Sarraf, who is involved in Case Crime No. 12 of 2020, under Section 20/29 N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station-N.C.B, District-Jhansi.
As per allegation 1025 kg of ganja was found in two trucks on 28.05.2022 at about 18.30 hours wherein four persons namely, Vinod Singh, Sanjay Kumar Singh, Shankar Barik @ Vikram and Chhotelal were found. Total 25 bags were recovered. Four accused arrested have confessed to the involvement in the alleged crime and they also named the applicant as the person to whom they were going to supply the recovered ganja and on the basis of their statements the applicant has been implicated in this case.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of the statements of the named accused from whom the alleged recovery of illegal ganja was made from their vehicles. The statement of the applicant has also been recorded wherein he has been stated to have confessed to his involvement in the alleged crime. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was tortured and made to confess his implication in the present case. As per judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2021)4 Supreme Court Cases 1 it is not binding on the applicant. There is no evidence against him except his confessional statement. Nothing was recovered from the applicant hence he has claimed the benefit of the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Bharat Chaudhary Vs. Union of India, passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.5703 of 2021.
Learned counsel for NCB, Sri Ashish Pandey, has vehemently opposed the bail application relying upon his counter affidavit and has stated that sufficient evidence has been collected against the applicant. He was not cooperating with the investigation and his statement under Section 67 of NDPS Act applicant proves his involvement in alleged crime. The constructive possession of the applicant is proved from the evidence on record.
After hearing rival contentions, this court finds that in the counter affidavit no evidence has been brought on record by the other side to connect the applicant to this crime, like telephonic conversations between the named accused and the applicant. There is no evidence against the applicant except his confessional statement. Only on the confession of the co-accused and the confessional statement of the applicant he cannot be denied bail by this court. Applicant is in jail since 27.04.2021.
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 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-
(i) 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;
(ii) 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.
(iii) 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.
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 :- 28.7.2022
SS
