Allahabad High Court
Neeraj Rai vs State Of U.P. on 7 January, 2025
Author: Ashutosh Srivastava
Bench: Ashutosh Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:3163
Court No. - 68
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 37518 of 2024
Applicant :- Neeraj Rai
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjeev Kumar Rai
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.
Heard Sri S. K. Rai, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State-Respondent and perused the record of the case.
The present bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of applicant, Neeraj Rai, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 338 of 2023, under Section 8/20 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station Maniyar, District Ballia.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that as per version of the FIR, on the information received from the Mukhbir the Police reached the spot where a truck and swift dzire were parked. Seeing the Police the driver of the swift dzire rashes negligently in order to escape from there and dashed with a tree. However, one person sitting in the swift dzire ran away and one person namely Raj Kumar Prajapati was arrested from the cabin of the truck. After making search, the Police recovered 10 Kg 300 Gram Ganja from the swift dzire and 21 Kg 200 Gram Ganja from the truck. After the interrogation the name of the applicant surfaced. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has not been arrested from the spot and the vehicle from where the alleged Ganja is stated to have been recovered is not registered in the name of the applicant. The allegation that Learned counsel for the applicant submits that 32 Kg and 500 Gm of Ganja is alleged to have been recovered from the possession of the applicant. In fact no such recovery was effected from the applicant. It is further submitted that since such recovery is not supported by independent witness, possibility of his false implication in the crime cannot be ruled out. It is next contended that in the present case the prosecution has failed to follow strictly the provisions of Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act. It is also argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present crime with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and victimize him. The applicant, who is in jail since 20.08.2024. The applicant has criminal history of six cases to his credit and there is no likelihood of his fleeing from course of justice or tampering with evidence in case of release on bail. In case the applicant is released on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant 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.
It is settled position of law that bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Balchand @ Baliay (1977) 4 SCC 308, the Apex Court observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and opined para 2 "The basic rule may perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail, except where there are circumstances suggestive of fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like, by the petitioner who seeks enlargement on bail from the court. We do. not intend to be exhaustive but only illustrative." and considering the facts of the case and keeping in mind, the ratio of the Apex Court's judgment in the case of Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors. Vs Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 429, 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.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits, let the applicant, Neeraj Rai, 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 with the following conditions that :-
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. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
Order Date :- 7.1.2025
pks
