Suryabhan Maurya @ Mulayam Maurya v. State of U.P

Court No. - 74 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45803 of 2023 Applicant :- Suryabhan Maurya @ Mulayam Maurya Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Raghvendra Prakash Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. 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 V.P.Tripathi, learned AGA for the State.

¶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. 112 of 2023, under Section 8/20 of N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station-Tarwa, District-Azamgarh, during the pendency of the trial.

¶4Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. False recovery of 20.200 Kg. (three packets) Ganja has been shown from the applicant. The alleged packets of ganja were weighed along with the packing material. No accurate scientific instruments were used for weighment. The police has deliberately shown the quantity of the alleged narcotics substance marginally higher in order to add to the gravity of the offence. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. The mandatory provisions of Sections 42, 50 and 51 of N.D.P.S. Act have not been complied with. The procedure for sampling provided under Rules 8, 9,10 and 11 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022 have been violated. There is no FSL report to establish that the substance recovered is Ganja. The criminal history of the applicant has been explained in para 9 of the affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 08.05.2023 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 facts from the record.

¶6Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, I am of the prima facie view that the mandate of Chapter V of the NDPS Act has not been followed. There is no independent witness to the recovery. The procedure for sampling provided under Rule 8, 9,10 and 11 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022 have been violated. Further, the applicant has remained confined for more than six 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, Suryabhan Maurya @ Mulayam Maurya involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned on the following conditions that: i. the applicant shall not temper with the prosecution evidence; ii. the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witness; and, iii. the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court.

¶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 :- 9.11.2023 Lbm/- High Court of Judicature at Allahabad