Allahabad High Court
Amit Yadav @ Lilla And Another vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. on 1 April, 2025
Author: Manish Mathur
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:17892
Court No. - 13
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2669 of 2025
Applicant :- Amit Yadav @ Lilla And Jitendra Pratap Yadav @ Chhotu
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.
Counsel for Applicant :- Dilip Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for applicants, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State and perused the record.
2. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.45 of 2025, under Sections 8/20(b)(2b,27A,29,60(3) N.D.P.S. Act, registered at P.S.-Deeh District -Raebareli.
3. As per contents of First Information Report, upon an information being provided by informant, white Innova Car bearing no.UP 42 BC 2078 was apprehended by the police party and narcotics were recovered from applicants and co-accused. The FIR indicates that provision of Section 50 of NDPS Act have sufficiently been complied with since applicants declined to be examined before Magistrate despite information being supplied to them.
4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for applicants that applicants have falsely been implicated in the charges levelled against them and that the FIR clearly indicates non-compliance of Section 50 of NDPS Act. It is also submitted that the sampling process indicated is also not in accordance with the rules framed under the Act. He submits that involvement of applicants is only on the basis of extra judicial confessional statement which even otherwise is inadmissible as per the Evidence Act. Learned counsel for applicants submits that co-accused Ashok Yadav @ Pradhan has already been enlarged on bail vide Bail Application no.2419 of 2025; order dated 21.03.2025 passed by this Court. It is also submitted that applicants have no previous criminal history and they are languishing in jail since 01.03.2025.
5. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail application with submission that a bare perusal of the FIR clearly indicates involvement of applicants and recovery of illegal narcotics from their persons. It is also stated that substantial compliance of Section 50 NDPS Act has also been indicated.
6. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 has specifically held that bail is to be a norm and an under-trial is not required to be in jail for ever pending trial. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment are as under :-
"21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty."
"27. This Court, time and again, has stated that bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. It has also observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution."
7. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of material on record, prima facie, and subject to further evidence being led in trial, there does not appear to be substantive compliance of Section 50 NDPS Act and applicants' involvement also appears only on the basis of extra judicial confessional statement. As such, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this Court finds, the applicants are entitled to be released on bail in this case since conditions of Section37 of NDPS Act are made out.
8. Accordingly bail application is allowed.
9. Let applicants Amit Yadav @ Lilla and Jitendra Pratap Yadav @ Chhotu, involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on each of them furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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.
(ii) The applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iii) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their 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 them, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) The applicants 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 applicants 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 them in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 1.4.2025
kvg/-
