Allahabad High Court
Dillip Verma vs State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home ... on 9 November, 2022
Bench: Shree Prakash Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 27
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1393 of 2022
Applicant :- Dillip Verma
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home Lucknow
Counsel for Applicant :- Satyendra Nath Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Nirmal Kumar Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
Instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release the applicant on bail during the trial in Case Crime No.0368 of 2021, under Section 8/20/27(A) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, P.S. - Dalmau, District - Raebareli.
As per version of the F.I.R., 8 kg. contraband substance i.e. Ganja and Rs.1100/- is said to have been recovered from the possession of the applicant by the police.
Learned counsel appearing for the applicant contends that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the instant matter. He next added that 8 kg. of contraband substance, i.e., Ganja, which is said to have been recovered from the possession of the applicant, is below the commercial quantity. He further added that there is no independent public eye-witness of the aforesaid recovery. He added that in fact the police has connected the present applicant with one quintal and 500gram of Ganja which was being carried by the truck. He submits that the present applicant was neither sitting inside the truck nor he has ever put the aforesaid contraband inside the container of the truck. He also added that the Investigating Officer could not substantiate the aforesaid recovery from the truck to the present applicant and only substance is the confessional statement of the applicant. He also added that the name of the father has also wrongly been mentioned as the present applicant is son of one Devta Prasad Verma though he has been named as son of Devta Deen. He submits that there are material contradictions in the story of the prosecution and as such the same are unbelievable story.
He submits that there is non-compliance of Section 50 of N.D.P.S. Act and in support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the Judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Arif Khan @ Agha Khan vs. State of Uttarakhand, (2018) 18 SCC 380 wherein it has been held that mandatory procedure of Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act has to be complied with in regard to search and recovery.
He next added that the applicant has no previous criminal antecedent as has been mentioned in para-12 of the bail application. He further added that the applicant is law abiding citizen and is languishing in jail since 03.12.2021. He submits that in case the applicant is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer of bail and submits that applicant is involved in committing the aforesaid offence. He added that the present applicant was riding over the motorcycle before truck, wherein the recovery of huge commercial quantity of ganja was recovered, and as such, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of record, it is evident that there is non compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act; there is no previous criminal antecedent of the applicant; further prima facie it seems that the investigating agency has failed to substantiate the connection of the present applicant with the recovery which was done from the truck and the recovery which has been shown from the possession of the applicant which was being taken away, is below than the commercial quantity; and the applicant is languishing in jail since 03.12.2021.Considering the aforesaid facts, I find it to be a fit case for bail.
Let the applicant Dillip Verma involved in the aforementioned crime be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:-
(1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial;
(2) 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. He 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) 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.; and
(4) 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, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.
The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.
It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case.
Order Date :- 9.11.2022
KR
