Allahabad High Court
Shyam Sundar Yadav vs N.C.B. on 9 May, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:84139
Court No. - 73
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 42662 of 2023
Applicant :- Shyam Sundar Yadav
Opposite Party :- N.C.B.
Counsel for Applicant :- Avinash Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Ashish Pandey
Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.
1. Heard Sri Avinash Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ashish Pandey, learned counsel for the N.C.B.
2. The instant second bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.19 of 2020, under Sections 8/25/29 N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station- N.C.B. Lucknow, District- Fatehpur, during pendency of the trial in the court below.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that this is the second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant and his first bail application has been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 24.01.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.11180 of 2021 and he is pressing the instant second bail application mainly on the ground that applicant is in jail in the present matter since 23.07.2020 i.e. for last more than three and half years and till date not even a single prosecution witness could be examined.
4. He further submits that in the present matter complaint was filed by the N.C.B. against applicant on 13.01.2021 and charges were framed on 12.11.2021 and since framing of charges more than two years have been passed but till date not even a single prosecution witness could be examined and therefore, trial of the case is moving with languid pace and there is no hope of its early disposal.
5. He further submits that right of speedy trial is a fundamental right of an accused andon its violation even bail under the provisions of N.D.P.S. Act can be considered. He placed reliance upon the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Muslim alias Hussain Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2023 SCC OnLine SC 352.
6. He further submits that applicant is having no criminal history to his credit and therefore, considering the long incarceration of the applicant, he should be released on bail.
7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the N.C.B. opposed the prayer for bail and submits that this is the second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant and his first bail application has been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 24.01.2023 after considering the entire facts of the case.
8. He further submits that applicant is the truck driver and from the cavity of his truck 27 kg. opium was recovered, which was huge commercial quantity and therefore merely on the ground of delay in trial and long incarceration of the applicant, it would not proper to release him on bail.
9. However, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the N.C.B. could not dispute the fact that in the present matter complaint was filed by the N.C.B. against applicant on 13.01.2021 and charges were framed on 12.11.2021 and even till date not even a single prosecution witness could be examined in spite of repeated summons issued by the court concerned.
10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the N.C.B. further could not dispute the fact that applicant is having no criminal history to his credit and he is in jail in the present matter since 23.07.2020 i.e. for last more than three and half years.
11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.
12. This is the second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant and his first bail application has been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 24.01.2023.
13. From the record, it reflects that applicant is truck driver and from the cavity of his truck 27 kg. opium was recovered, which was huge commercial quantity but record further suggests, trial of the case is moving with languid pace and there is no hope of its early disposal. In the present matter complaint was filed by the N.C.B. against applicant on 13.01.2021 but charges could only be framed on 12.11.2021 i.e. after ten months and not only this, more than two years have been passed since framing of charges but till date not even a single prosecution witness could be examined in spite of repeated summons issued by the court concerned. Further, applicant is in jail in this case since 23.07.2020 i.e. for last more than three and half years.
14. The law is settled, right of speedy trial is fundamental right of an accused. The Court cannot ignore prolonged incarceration of an accused who is facing trial since long. Prolonged incarceration of an accused violates his constitutional right.
15. Although, provisions of Section 37 N.D.P.S. Act curtail the right of an accused to secure bail but Apex Court in case of Mohd. Muslim alias Hussain (supra) after discussing the provisions of Section 37 N.D.P.S. Act and several judgments of the Supreme Court observed that grant of bail on ground undue delay in trial, cannot be fettered by Section 37 N.D.P.S. Act.
16. Therefore, considering the languid pace of trial and long incarceration of applicant,, in my view applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
17. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.
18. Let the applicant- Shyam Sundar Yadav be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted.
(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.
19. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.
20. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.
Order Date :- 9.5.2024
Zafar
