Court No. - 90
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16789 of 2021 Applicant :- Arjun Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Shekhar Gangal,Hemendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
Learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. have appeared through video conferencing and perused the record.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in case crime no. 171 of 2021 under Section 8, 20 (b) (ii), 25, 29, 60 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and Section 34 I.P.C., P.S. Kwarsi, District - Aligarh during the pendency of the trial.
As per FIR version, during patrolling the police has intercepted two vehicles i.e. vehicle No. UP81AU 7070 and vehicle No. UP81AP8283. All the three accused, as mentioned in the FIR, were sitting in vehicle No. UP81AP8283 and from their joint possession 30 kg. ganja has been shown to be recovered. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that present applicant has falsely been implicated in the forged and fictitious FIR. Infact, on the said date another vehicle bearing registration No. UP81AU707 was intercepted by the police and some contraband substance was allegedly recovered from said vehicle. The present applicant, who was travelling with his sister, forced to become a witness with respect to the aforesaid vehicle. When present applican and other two passengers have refused to become the witness of the alleged incident, they have falsely been implicated in the present matter for some ulterior motive under NDPS Act. In fact no such recovery has been made from the vehicle and active possession of the present applicant. The alleged quantity of ganja, as has been shown to be recovered, was in fact planted just to falsely implicate the present applicant. Even otherwise, 1/3 fraction of whole quantity of alleged recovered ganja i.e. 30 kg will amount less than the commercial quantity from the possession of each person. There is no eye witness or public witness to authenticate the veracity of the averment made in FIR, as required under the NDPS Act. In fact the applicant is innocent person. He was not involved in the commission of crime, as mentioned in the FIR. The culpability of the present applicant in the commission of crime has been planted due to annoyance of the police personnel. In paragraphs 14 and 15 of the affidavit filed in support of bail application it is stated that prior to this case he was never involved in any crime under the NDPS Act. He has no criminal history.
Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 14.02.2021. There are no chances of applicant fleeing away from judicial process or tampering with prosecution evidence. He undertakes to appear personally on each and every date and also not seek any unnecessary adjournment during trial. In case, he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse liberty of bail.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application and contended that his innocence cannot be adjudicated at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence and there is likelihood of their involvement in other case. In case he is released on bail, he may misuse the liberty of bail.
The Apex Court in the Case of Union of India vs. Shiv Shankar Keshari, (2007) 7 SCC 798 has held that the court, while considering the application for bail, is not called upon to record a finding of not guilty. It is for the limited purpose essentially confined to the question of releasing the accused on bail that the court is called upon to see if there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and records its satisfaction about the existence of such grounds. But the court has not to consider the matter as if it is pronouncing a judgment of acquittal and recording a finding of not guilty.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusal of record and considering the complicity of accused, totality of facts and circumstances of the case as well as the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh vs. State of U.P. and another, (2018) 3 SCC 22, larger mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, without commenting on the merits of the case at this stage, I find it a fit case to release applicant on bail.
Let the applicant Arjun involved in 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 magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-
(i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.
(ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.
(iii) The applicant will not indulge in any unlawful activities.
(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever.
The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 13.5.2021 Manish Tripathi