Bhai Lal v. Union of India

Court No. - 85 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32879 of 2023 Applicant :- Bhai Lal Opposite Party :- Union of India Counsel for Applicant :- Chandra Shekhar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- Ashish Pandey Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J. Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of applicant is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Vipul Pandey holding brief of Sri Ashish Pandey, learned counsel for the N.C.B., learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. This fifth bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant in Case Crime No. 04 of 2016, under Sections 8/20/29 of N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station Industrial Area Naini, District Allahabad with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail. The first, second, third and fourth bail applications of the applicant have been rejected by this Court vide orders dated 24.05.2016, 12.05.2017, 05.07.2019 and 23.09.2022. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that after rejection of the fourth bail application of the applicant, co-accused Narendra Kumar who was driving another vehicle from which around 2 quintal Ganja was recovered, has been granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 03.05.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 22080 of 2020. It is alleged that applicant was driving another vehicle from which around 1.5 quintal Ganja was recovered, and therefore, the case of the applicant stands on better footing to the co-accused Narendra Kumar. It is further submitted that applicant is languishing in jail since 10.02.2016 having no criminal history and that in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate as well as learned counsel for the N.C.B. have opposed the prayer for grant of bail but they could not dispute the aforesaid aspect of the matter. In Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that:- "15. This Court has clarified in numerous judgments that the liberty guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution would cover within its protective ambit not only due procedure and fairness but also access to justice and a speedy trial. In Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee v. Union of India SCC para-15 it was held that undertrials cannot indefinitely be detained pending trial. Ideally, no person ought to suffer adverse consequences of his acts unless the same is established before a neutral arbiter. However, owing to the practicalities of real life where to secure an effective trial and to ameliorate the risk to society in case a potential criminal is left at large pending trial, the Courts are tasked with deciding whether an individual ought to be released pending trial or not. Once it is obvious that a timely trial would not be possible and the accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period of time, Courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge them on bail." Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of evidence and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed. Let the applicant Bhai Lal in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy local sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned subject to the following conditions:

(1). The applicant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence during the trial.

(2). The applicant will not influence any witness.

(3). The applicant will appear before the trial Court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

(4). The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move an application before this Court seeking cancellation of the bail. Order Date :- 28.10.2023 AKT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad