Munahim @ Rijju v. State of U.P

Court No. - 74 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6214 of 2023 Applicant :- Munahim @ Rijju Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Kumar Verma,Anemash Kumar Kushwaha,Surendra Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶1Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

¶2Sri Nagendra Kumar Mishra, learned Brief Holder for the State, submits that the instructions have been received and he has no objection in case the bail application is decided on merits.

¶3Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Nagendra Kumar Mishra, learned Brief Holder for the State-opposite party.

¶4The 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. 01426 of 2022, under Sections 21/22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, Police Station Highway, District Mathura during the pendency of trial.

¶5Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. False recovery of 700 grams alprazolam powder has been shown from the applicant. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. The mandatory provisions of Sections 42, 50, 51 and 52-A of the N.D.P.S. Act have not been complied with. No accurate scientific instruments were used for weighment. It is next contended that co-accused Raunak @ Panna, from whose possession 1500 gram alprazolam powder was recovered, has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 31.07.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 21387 of 2023, Raunak @ Panna v. State of U.P.. The applicant claims parity. The applicant is in jail since

31.12.2022 having no criminal history and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶6Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶7After hearing the rival contentions and after perusal of the record, this Court prima facie finds that the provisions of Sections 42, 50 and 51 of the N.D.P.S. Act have not been complied with. 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. Co-accused Raunak @ Panna has been granted bail by this Court. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. Hence, there are reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant shall not indulge himself in other cases of like nature. Further, the applicant has remained confined for almost eleven 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.

¶8Let the applicant-Munahim @ Rijju, 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.

¶9In 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 :- 1.12.2023 SKT/- High Court of Judicature at Allahabad