Allahabad High Court
Mohammad Arman vs Union Of India Through D.R.I. ... on 17 March, 2023
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Reserved on 14.03.2023.
Delivered on 17.03.2023
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 42230 of 2021
Applicant :- Mohammad Arman
Opposite Party :- Union Of India Through D.R.I. Varanasi
Counsel for Applicant :- Brijesh Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Krishna Agarawal
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Heard Sri Brijesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Krishna Agarawal, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
There is allegation against the applicant that 350 kg of ganja was recovered from joint possession of the applicant and two co-accused namely, Akram and Raja Khan, when they were travelling in a truck. Applicant was earlier implicated under Section 43 and 8/20 N.D.P.S Act and was granted bail by this court vide Crl. Misc. Bail application No.783 of 2020. Subsequently, it was found that the department has filed complaint against the applicant under section 8/20, 27A, 29 N.D.P.S Act. He applied for bail again under Section 27A and 29 of the N.D.P.S Act, which was rejected and hence he is before this court again. The bail which was earlier granted to the applicant was subjected to challenge before the Apex Court by way of S.L.P (Criminal) No.1243 of 2022 by the opposite party but the Apex court not to interfere with the same.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that offence alleged under Section 27A is not made out against the applicant since there is no allegation of any financing of illicit traffic or harbouring offender against the applicant. He himself was involved in illicit trafficking and was found to be an offender hence was implicated under Section 8/20 of N.D.P.S Act. He has further submitted that Section 29 of N.D.P.S. Act provides for punishment for abetment and criminal conspiracy. When the applicant himself was an offender along with two co-accused there is no question of any abetment of offence or hatching of any criminal conspiracy. The implication under the aforesaid sections are unwarranted. This is first implication of the applicant and he does not appears to be habitual offender and may not involve himself in similar activity again.
Sri Krishna Agarawal, learned counsel for the opposite-party-D.R.I, Varanasi, 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 NDPS 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.
Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused; submissions of the learned counsel for the parties noted above; finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant; keeping view the uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; one sided investigation by police, ignoring the case of accused side; applicant being under trial having fundamental right to speedy trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and recent judgment dated 11.07.2022 of the Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil vs. C.B.I., passed in S.L.P (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021 and considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by the under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant, Mohammad Arman, involved in Case Crime No.02 of 2019, under Sections 27A/29 N.D.P.S Act, Police Station D.R.I, District- Varanasi 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.
(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 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 and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
Order Date :- 17.03.2023
SS
