Kallu Yadav v. State of U.P

Court No. - 72 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44724 of 2023 Applicant :- Kallu Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Raj Narayan Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶1List has been revised.

¶2Heard Sri Raj Narayan Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ram Mohit Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶3Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.107 of 2023, under Section 8/20(A), 25 of The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station-Manikpur, District Chitrakoot, during the pendency of trial.

¶4As per the allegations of the FIR, the applicant and co-accused person Manoj Gautam were arrested by the police on 18.9.2023 carrying the fresh Ganja weighing about 11 kg.

¶5Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant is stated to be carrying 6 kg. Ganga, which is below the commercial quantity. Learned counsel has further stated that there is no compliance of mandatory provision of Section 50 & 52A of the N.D.P.S. Act. There is no F.S.L. report to indicate that the said contraband is Ganja. The applicant is languishing in jail since 19.9.2023, having no criminal history to his credit. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶6Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application.

¶7In Arif Khan @ Agha Khan v. State of Uttarakhand (2018) 18 SCC 380, in which the Apex Court held that Section 50 of the NDPS Act mandatorily required search of the suspect/accused to be carried out in the presence of a magistrate or Gazetted officer, even if such a suspect/accused had waived the right to be taken to a magistrate or Gazetted Officer.

¶8Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusal of record and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment as well as totality of facts and circumstances, at this stage without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶9Let the applicant-Kallu Yadav, who is involved in aforementioned case 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence.

(ii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant 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 him in accordance with law.

¶10In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶11It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. Order Date :- 31.10.2023 Vikas [Krishan Pahal, J.] High Court of Judicature at Allahabad