Munna Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Court No. - 14 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11596 of 2023 Applicant :- Munna Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Onkar Nath Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶1Heard Shri Onkar Nath Tiwari, learned counsel for the accused-applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶2This bail application has been moved by the accused/applicant-Munna Yadav for grant of bail, in Case Crime No.226 of 2023, under Sections 8/21 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, Police Station Maharajganj, District Faizabad/Ayodhya, during trial.

¶3Learned counsel for the accused-applicant while pressing the bail application submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case only on account of his criminal history and no contraband as claimed by the prosecution has been recovered from the possession of the applicant.

¶4It is further submitted that the secret information allegedly received from the informer has not been reduced into writing either before or after recovery/arrest of the applicant, thus mandatory provision of Section 42 of N.D.P.S. Act has been violated. It is also submitted that Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act has also not been complied in letter and spirit and the right to be searched before the gazetted officer or magistrate has not been communicated as the same was required by established principle of law.

¶5It is also submitted that no serious efforts have been made by the police party to procure independent public witness and the absence of independent public witness casts a cloud of suspicion over the whole prosecution story and even if the case of the prosecution is believed, only 80 grams of diacetylmorphine is shown to have been recovered from the possession of the applicant, which is much below the commercial quantity i.e. 250 grams.

¶6It is further submitted that criminal history of 34 cases has been explained in para nos.5, 6 and 7 of the bail application as well as in supplementary affidavit dated 09.10.2023 and about 20 cases out of these 34 cases are pertaining to Section 60 of the Excise Act and in 16 cases out of these 20 cases the applicant has confessed his guilt and rest cases barring two are pertaining to minor offences and triable by magistrate and out of remaining two cases one is pertaining to N.D.P.S. Act and second is pertaining to Section 307 I.P.C., however, in all the cases applicant either has been released on bail or has confessed his guilt. Applicant is in jail in this case since 01.08.2023 and charge-sheet in this case has already been submitted and there is no apprehension that after being released on bail he may flee from the course of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty.

¶7Learned A.G.A., however, opposes the prayer of bail of the applicant on the ground that the applicant has committed an heinous offence and having regard to the material/evidence available against the applicant, he is not entitled to be released on bail

¶8Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is evident that only 80 grams of diacetylmorphine is shown to have been recovered from the possession of the applicant. Commercial quantity of the diacetylmorphine is more than 250 grams, thus the diacetylmorphine recovered from the applicant is much below the commercial quantity and the twin stringent conditions mentioned under Section 37(1)(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act would not attract in this case. Various submissions have been raised by learned counsel for the applicant in order to show that mandatory provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act has been violated and the recovery as shown by the police is highly suspicious and doubtful and could not be believed. Nothing has been shown on behalf of the prosecution, which may persuade this Court to further detain the applicant in jail. Applicant is in jail in this case since 01.08.2023. Criminal history of 34 cases is shown against the applicant, however, the same appears to have been explained and it is submitted on behalf of the applicant that to get rid of these criminal cases, the applicant has confessed his guilt in about 18 cases pertaining to Section 60 of the Excise Act and it is only on account of criminal history of the applicant, the instant F.I.R. has been lodged against him. Presence of the applicant may be secured before the trial court by placing adequate conditions/restrictions.

¶9Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the considered view that applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is thus allowed.

¶10Let the accused/applicant-Munna Yadav involved in above-mentioned case, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

(ii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶11In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶12Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the Court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶13Observations made herein-above by this court are only for the purpose of disposal of this bail application and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. Order Date :- 13.10.2023 Anupam S/- High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench