Allahabad High Court
Rajesh Yadav vs State Of U.P. on 9 May, 2023
Bench: Deepak Verma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:101490
Court No. - 87
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13062 of 2023
Applicant :- Rajesh Yadav
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.29 of 2023, under Section 8/20 of N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station - Bharatkoop, District Chitrakoot during pendency of the trial.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has further submitted that the instant F.I.R. is regarding recovery of 150 gm. dry and green Ganja from the possession of applicant. He has next submitted that green plant of Ganja has been recovered from his possession which is below commercial quantity. Further contention is that the statutory provisions of Sections 50 and 52 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 have not been complied with in the right manner. It is further submitted that criminal history of one case has been explained in supplementary affidavit. Moreover, there is no prospect of trial of the present case being concluded in near future. The applicant is languishing in jail since 27.02.2023 and in case he is enlarged on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail and co-operate in trial.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.
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 ratio of the Apex Court's judgment in the case of Union of India (supra), 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 the applicant - Rajesh Yadav, who is involved in the aforesaid case crime, 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.
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.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
Order Date :- 9.5.2023
Atul
