Arun Kumar Singh v. State of U.P

Court No. - 74 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 47863 of 2023 Applicant :- Arun Kumar Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Yadavendra Dwivedi,Santosh Kumar Tripathi 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 counsel for the applicant and Sri Rupak Chaubey, learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party.

¶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. 222 of 2023, under Sections 8/20/29 of the N.D.P.S. Act and Sections 419, 420, 467 and 468 of I.P.C., Police Station-Lalganj, District-Mirzapur during the pendency of trial.

¶4Counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. The applicant is not the owner of the alleged vehicle from which 66.400 Kg Ganja (22 packets) were recovered. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. There is nothing on record to demonstrate 'conscious possession' of the applicant. The mandatory provisions of Sections 42, 50 and 52 of N.D.P.S. Act have not been complied with. Further, the procedure of sampling prescribed in Rule 8, 9, 10 (1), 12 and 13 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022 have also been violated. There is no other evidence to connect the applicant with the offence. The applicant is in jail since 19.08.2023, 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.

¶6Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record I am of the prima facie view that mandate of Chapter V of the NDPS Act has not been followed. There is no independent witness to the recovery. Further, the procedure of sampling adopted is in violation of the Rule 8, 9, 10 (1), 12 and 13 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022. At this stage, there is no other substantive evidence to link the applicant with the offence. Further, the applicant has no criminal antecedents and has remained confined for more than three 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 Arun Kumar Singh, 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;

(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 :- 22.11.2023 Sachin Mishra High Court of Judicature at Allahabad