Allahabad High Court
Suraj vs N.C.B.Lucknow on 20 March, 2023
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
RESERVED ON 13.3.2023
DELIVERED ON 20.3.2023
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38193 of 2021
Applicant :- Suraj
Opposite Party :- N.C.B.Lucknow
Counsel for Applicant :- Krishna Kumar Shukla,Lalit Kumar Srivastava,Nikil Pathak,Sanjay Kumar Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Ashish Pandey
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Heard Shri Nikil Pathak learned counsel for applicant; Shri Ashish Pandey, learned counsel for the NCB and perused the record.
This bail application has been preferred by the accused-applicant, Suraj, who is involved in Case Crime No. 35 of 2020 under Sections 8/20/25/29 N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station- N.C.B. Lucknow, District- Lucknow.
There is allegation of recovery of 500 kg. of Ganja from the possession of the applicant and co-accused, who were found in possession of the aforesaid quantity of Ganja.From the recovery memo it appears that the total 250 packets of Ganja was recovered and 7 lots were prepared as per Standing Order No. 01/89 .It is not clear from the recovery memo as to how many samples were drawn from lots prepared. It appears that the samples were not drawn at the time of preparing of lots at all. It is only mentioned that the signatures of the search team and the accused was taken in the bags recovered. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that there is clear violation of of Standing Order No. 01/89 since representative sample in duplicate were not drawn from every lot of 40 bags prepared by the searching team.Applicant has no criminal history to his credit. He is in jail since 5.12.2020.
Learned counsel for the N.C.B. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant and pointed out to the call details of the applicant and other co-accused brought on record along with the counter affidavit. From the call details it appears that co-accused, Mayank Srivastava, made 19 calls to co-accused, Ankur Mishra.Co-accused, Ankur Mishra, made 86 calls to Tuna but there is no mention of any call having been made by the applicant to any of the co-accused. Applicant claims that he is driver as mentioned in the statement under section 67 of N.D.P.S. Act and was promised Rs.15,000/- for driving truck to Orrisa and coming back.
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, and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
Order Date :- 20.3.2023
Atul kr. sri.
