Suresh Yadav v. Narcotics Control Bureau Though Secretaty (Home)Government of U.P. at Lucknow

Court No. - 74 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44632 of 2023 Applicant :- Suresh Yadav Opposite Party :- Narcotics Control Bureau Though Secretaty

(Home)Government Of U.P. At Lucknow Counsel for Applicant :- Vijai Prakash Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- Ashish Pandey Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶1Learned AGA 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 Sri Vipul Pandey, Advocate holding brief of Sri Ashish Pandey, learned counsel for the Narcotics Control Bureau.

¶3The instant bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 15 of 2023, under Sections 8/20/25/29 N.D.P.S. Act , Police Station N.C.B. Lucknow, during the pendency of trial.

¶4Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not arrested at the spot and has been falsely implicated in the instant case. False recovery of 18.05 Kg. ganja (two sacks) has been shown from the co-accused Durga Prasad Singh and Moti @ Vinod. There is no independent witness to the recovery. The recovered contraband is below commercial quantity. The mandatory provisions of Sections 42, 50 and 51 of the N.D.P.S. Act have not been complied with. There is no FSL report to establish that the substance recovered is ganja. At present there is no cogent evidence to link the applicant with the offence. The applicant is in jail since 08.07.2023 having no criminal history and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

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

¶6Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, I am of the prima facie view that the recovered contraband is below commercial quantity. The applicant was not arrested at the spot. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. The mandate of Chapter V of the NDPS Act has not been followed. The sampling has not been done in the presence of Magistrate, which is required under Section 52A of the NDPS Act. At present there is no substantive evidence against the applicant. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. Further the applicant has remained confined for almost four 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 the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶7Let the applicant Suresh Yadav, involved in the aforesaid 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 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 :- 7.11.2023 Lbm/- High Court of Judicature at Allahabad