Sanjay Maurya v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Sectt. Lko

Court No. - 14 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12745 of 2023 Applicant :- Sanjay Maurya Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Sectt. Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Sumit Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶1Counter affidavit filed by the State is taken on record.

¶2Heard Shri Sumit Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the accused-applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶3This bail application has been moved by the accused/applicant-Sanjay Maurya for grant of bail, in Case Crime No.0052 of 2023, under Sections 8B/18C of the N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station Raniganj, District Pratapgarh, during trial.

¶4Learned counsel for the accused-applicant while pressing the bail application submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and he has not committed any offence as claimed by the prosecution.

¶5It is further submitted that F.I.R. of this case has been lodged by the Station House Officer, Police Station Raniganj, District Pratapgarh alleging that on a report submitted by the Revenue Official, opium plants have been found planted in the bhumidhari land of the applicant and in this regard a letter was sent to the Zonal Director of the N.C.B., Lucknow and the plants were preserved.

¶6It is vehemently submitted on behalf of the applicant that the F.I.R. is vague, concocted and could not be believed as no area has been mentioned in the F.I.R. or in the statement of any witness, wherein the crop of poppy plant is stated to have been found even no assessment of yield of these plants has been made by any authority including N.C.B. to which communication is alleged to have been sent and therefore, it could not be assessed at this point of time as to what could be the yield of these plants of poppy, which are shown to have been planted in the bhumidhari land of the applicant.

¶7It is further submitted that though it is alleged that some of the plants taken from the land of the applicant have been preserved and sent to the forensic lab, however, the sample has not been taken in pursuance of the guidelines issued by the Revenue Department, Ministry of Finance of the year 1989 and whole prosecution story appears to be in doubt in absence of any independent public witness and the witnesses, which have been shown by the police party as witnesses of seizure, are the pocket witness of the police. Even if the case of the prosecution is taken on its face, the offence appears to be punishable with 10 years imprisonment.

¶8It is next submitted that applicant is in jail in this case since

14.09.2023 and he is not having any criminal history, charge-sheet in this case has already been submitted and there is no apprehension that after being released on bail the applicant may flee from the course of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty.

¶9Learned 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 fact that plantation of opium plants has been found in his bhumidhari land, the same would be deemed to be in his possession and therefore, applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.

¶10Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is evident that accusation of the applicant is to the tune that in his bhumidhari land poppy plant is found to have been planted, however, it has not been mentioned either in the F.I.R. or in the statement of any witness as to how much area was used by the applicant for the purpose of planting poppy plants. A letter is shown to have been written by the Revenue Authority to the N.C.B., however, nothing has been brought on record, which may suggest that any action has been taken by the N.C.B. with regard to the said communication and it has not been specified anywhere as to what yield could have been fetched by the crop of these plants. Charge-sheet in this case has already been filed. Applicant is in jail in this case since

14.09.2023 without any previous criminal history. The presence of the applicant could be secured before the trial court by placing adequate conditions. Having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case, applicability of Section 37(1)(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act is in doubt.

¶11Having 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.

¶12Let the accused/applicant-Sanjay Maurya 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.

¶13In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶14Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the Court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶15Observations 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 of this Court on the merits of the case. Order Date :- 16.11.2023 Anupam S/- High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench