Rajendra v. State of U.P

Court No. - 74 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 18759 of 2022 Applicant :- Rajendra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vijay Tripathi,Kuldeep Singh Chahar,Sudhakar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶1Heard counsel for the applicant and Sri V.P. Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party.

¶2The 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. 105 of 2022, under Sections 8/20 of N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station-Hari Parwat, District-Agra during the pendency of trial.

¶3Counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. False recovery of 3.500 kg charas has been shown from the applicant. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. The mandatory provisions of Sections 42, 50, 51 and 52A of N.D.P.S. Act have not been complied with. No accurate scientific instruments were used for weighment. The procedure of sampling is in violation of the provision conferred under the N.D.P.S. Act. The applicant is in jail since 16.03.2022, having no criminal history. In case, he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶4Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶5Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record this Court prima facie finds that the mandate of Sections 42, 50, 51 and 52A of the N.D.P.S. Act has not been followed. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. Sample was not taken from each packet, one common sample was prepared and sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory. Thus, the procedure of sampling adopted is in violation of Rules 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. Hence, there are reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant should not indulge himself in other cases of similar nature. Apart from the instant case, the applicant is not involved in any case, as such there are reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant shall not indulge himself in other cases of similar nature. Moreover, the applicant has remained confined for more than one year and eight months and 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.

¶6Let the applicant Rajendra, 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.

¶7In 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 :- 4.12.2023 Sachin Mishra High Court of Judicature at Allahabad