Suresh v. State of U.P

Court No. - 74 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44759 of 2023 Applicant :- Suresh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Pathak Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶1Learned A.G.A. for the State submits that the instructions have been received and he has no objection in case the bail application is decided on merits.

¶2Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party.

¶3The instant bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 297 of 2023, under Sections 21/22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, Police Station-Hathras Gate, District-Hathras during the pendency of trial.

¶4Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. False recovery of 574 gram Diazepam powder has been shown from the applicant. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. The mandatory provisions of Sections 42, 50 and 51 of the N.D.P.S. Act have not been complied with. There is no F.S.L. report to establish that the substance recovered is 'Diazepam'. While weighing the recovered substance, the police has weighed it along with packing material. The police has deliberately shown the quantity of the alleged narcotics substance marginally higher in order to add gravity to the offence. No accurate scientific instruments were used for weighment. The applicant is in jail since 20.08.2023 having no criminal history and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶5Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶6After hearing the rival contentions and after perusal of the record, this Court prima facie finds that the mandate of Chapter V of the N.D.P.S. Act has not been followed. The sampling has not been done in the presence of the Magistrate which is required under Section 52A of the NDPS Act. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. Further, the applicant has remained confined for more than two months and after submission of the charge-sheet there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, more so when no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the evidence or delay the trial or intimidate the witness, without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶7Let the applicant-Suresh, 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 subject to the conditions that he:

(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;

(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; and,

(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.

¶8In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. Order Date :- 1.11.2023 SKT/- High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad