Allahabad High Court
Ram Avtar Yadav vs State Of U.P. on 8 April, 2025
Author: Siddharth
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:51084
Court No. - 47
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45565 of 2024
Applicant :- Ram Avtar Yadav
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ghan Shyam Das
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Heard Sri Kamal Krishna, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ghana Shyam Das, learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This bail application has been preferred by the accused-applicant, Ram Avtar Yadav, who is involved in Case Crime No. 189 of 2023, under Section 8/20/23/29 N.D.P.S. Act, 1985, and section 34 IPC, Police Station- Sonauli, District- Maharajganj.
On 11.02.2025 the following order was passed:-
"Heard Shri Kamal Krishna, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Ghan Shyam Das, learned counsel for the applicant.
The applicant is incarcerated in Jail since 24.11.2023 in Case Crime No. 189 of 2023, under Section 8/20/23/29 of NDPS Act and Section 34 of IPC, Police Station Sonauli, District Maharajganj.
The recovery of 85 Kg. of Charas has been alleged from the vehicle bearing Registration No. UP56AU4501.
It is contended that the vehicle does not belong to the applicant or to the other co-accused and is registered with one Raj Kumar Chaudhary. It is also argued that entire recovery is planted one inasmuch as, the vehicle stated to be involved in the incident as per the GPS location was shown to be present at the Police Station Sonauli at 7:29 PM and thereafter, no journey has been undertaken by the said vehicle. The incident giving rise to the present case crime number is stated to have been occurred on 23.11.2023 at 23:50 hours and the FIR has been lodged at 02:04 AM.
It is sought to be argued that the falsity of the case of the prosecution is apparent from the fact that the vehicle was present at the Police Station Sonauli since 7:29 PM and could not have been involved in the alleged offence.
Learned AGA may file counter affidavit within a period of three weeks' indicating the fact as to whether the vehicle in question carried out any journey after 7:29 PM on 23.11.2023 or not.
List this case as fresh on 4.3.2025."
On 04.03.2025 the following order was passed:-
"This Court vide order dated 11.02.2025 had required learned AGA to apprise this Court as to whether the vehicle in question which was stated to be standing at the Police Station Sonauli has undergone any journey after 7:29 PM on 23.11.2023. Despite time having been granted, learned AGA has neither filed any counter affidavit nor in a position to answer the query of the Court.
Learned AGA submits that requisite information regarding G.P.S. location of the vehicle in question sought by the Court can only be provided by the manufacturer company of the vehicle in question and as a last indulgence, time up to 18.03.2025 be accorded to him to do the needful.
Time prayed for is allowed.
Put up this case on 18.03.2025 enabling learned AGA to comply with the order dated 11.02.2025 as last opportunity."
The learned counsel for the applicant has filed second supplementary affidavit wherein the manufacturer has made a note on the application given by the S.H.O., P.S. Sonauli, District Maharajganj that there is a GPSdevice fitted in the vehicle for the purpose of tracking the vehicle. The vehicle was at P.S. Sonauli at the time of alleged recovery and hence, the recovery made is doubtful.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the place of incident is therefore, clearly doubtful and it is a case of false implication. Applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive, on the basis of false and planted recovery of 85 Kg of charas and there is no public witness of the alleged recovery. It is further contended that mandatory provision of Section 50 of N.D.P.S Act has not been complied with. At the stage of consideration of bail it cannot be decided whether offer given to the applicant and his consent obtained was voluntary. These are the questions of fact which can be determined only during trial and not at the present stage. In case of prima facie non-compliance of mandatory provision of Section 50 the accused is entitled to be released on bail within the meaning of Section 37 of N.D.P.S. Act. The procedure of sampling adopted is in violation of Standing Order / Instruction No.1 of 1989 dated 13.6.1989 issued by the Government of India under Section 52 A of N.D.P.S. Act. The applicant has no criminal history is in jail since 24.11.2023 and he undertakes that he will not misuse liberty, if granted.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre-trial stage who is involved in supplying contraband, therefore, the applicant does not deserve any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activity. The "reasonable grounds" mentioned in Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of NDPS Act mean something more than prima facie ground. It implies substantial probable causes for believing that accused is not guilty of the offence charged and points to existence of such facts and circumstances which are sufficient to hold that accused is not guilty.
However 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 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 :- 8.4.2025
Nisha
