Allahabad High Court
Narendra Kumar vs Union Of India on 3 May, 2023
Bench: Neeraj Tiwari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 2
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 22080 of 2020
Applicant :- Narendra Kumar
Opposite Party :- Union of India
Counsel for Applicant :- Krishna Nand Singh,Chandra Shekhar Mishra,Ramesh Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Ashish Pandey
Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.
This is third bail application.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ashish Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite party.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is a driver of the vehicle in question and has nothing to do with the matter. He next submitted that alleged recovery of 100 Kg of Ganja is fake. He also submitted that applicant is languishing in jail for more than 7 years and till now, out of 10 witnesses, only 2 are examined. He also submitted that applicant is having no criminal history, therefore, ground of detention is sufficient to enlarge him on bail. He also pointed out that co-accused Trishool Chandra Jaiswal, who is owner of the vehicle in question alongwith criminal history of 9 cases has already been granted bail by this court vide order dated 20.04.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 46370 of 2021. He next submitted that in SLP(Crl) No. 307 of 2023(Raju Ram Vs. The State of Bihar), decided on 31.01.2023, Apex Court has enlarged the applicant in NDPS matter on bail on the ground of detention for more than 5 years, therefore, applicant-herein is also entitled to be released on bail.
Sri Ashish Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite party has vehemently opposed the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant and submitted that detention cannot be a ground for enlarging the applicant on bail, as the delay was caused by applicant himself by not engaging a counsel. He also submitted that bail application of Bhai Lal, driver of another vehicle has been rejected by this Court, therefore, petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail, but he could not dispute about the criminal history of the applicant.
I have considered judgment of Apex Court in in Raju Ram(Supra), which is a short judgment and is being quoted hereinbelow.
"Applications seeking exemption from filing certified copy of the impugned order as also seeking exemption from filing official translation of the Annexures are allowed.
2. The petitioner seeks his enlargement on regular bail in N.D.P.S. Case No. 07/2019/02/18, arising out of Sherghati Excise Case No. 537/2017, which is pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Gaya(Bihar)
3. The allegations are that during checking by the excise officials at Dhirjabridge (Dobhi Chatra Raod), two persons including the petitioner were caught with two packets containing 12 kg and 13 kg opium respectively.
4. The petitioner has surrendered on 28-12-2017 and is in custody since then. The petitioner is thus incarcerated for more than five years.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record.
6. It is true that trial has commenced and out of 8 witnesses, 2 witnesses have reportedly been examined by the Trial Court. However, the conclusion of trial will still take some time. The petitioner has no criminal antecedents. The period which the petitioner has already spent in custody is sufficient to exempt the rigours of Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
7. Consequently, without expressing any views on the merits of the case, we are inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
8. The petitioner is, therefore, directed to be released on bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial court.
9. The Special Leave Petition is disposed of in the above-terms."
In the instant case, there is no dispute on the point that applicant is in jail for more than 7 years having no criminal history.
Considering the material on record as well as the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22, larger mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, let the applicant-Narendra Kumar, involved in Case Crime No. 04 of 2016, under Sections- 8/20/29 NDPS Act, Police Station- NCB, Lucknow be enlarged on bail on his executing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
This bail order would be subject to the fulfilment of following conditions:-
1. The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.
2. The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.
3. The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.
4. 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;
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. In case the applicant has been enlarged on short term bail as per the order of committee constituted under the orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court his bail shall be effective after the period of short term bail comes to an end.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
Order Date :- 3.5.2023
ADY
