Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2021
  6. /
  7. January

Neeraj <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection" class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="affbddc6dfcedbc7c6ef">[email&#xA0;protected]</a> Ram vs State Of U.P.

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|19 August, 2021

JUDGMENT / ORDER

Heard Sri Shyam Kishore Tripathi as well as Sri A.C. Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
This bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No. 247 of 2020, under Section 8/21 of N.D.P.S. Act and 18A/28, 18 (c)/27 (b) (i) Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, Police Station Attarsuiya, District Allahabad/Prayagraj, during pendency of trial.
It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. It is next contended that the applicant was the driver of the vehicle and he has no concern with the alleged recovery. As per the first information report, 20 bags of white flour (Maida), 9 bags and 14 cartoons containing 2800 bottles of Phencyrix Batch No. 45119-5 MB1 and 1650 bottles of Z Rex Batch ZRE 1905 (each 5 ml codeine phospate IP 10 mg) were alleged to be recovered from the loader which was being driven the by applicant. It is next contended that the said recovery is false and planted by the police for which there is no public witness. No compliance of mandatory provision of Section 50 of N.D.P.S. Act has been made. It is next contended that co-accused Govind Kumar and Mohd. Suleman, whose role was identical to that of the applicant, have already been enlarged on bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 17.12.2020 and 11.01.2021 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 46658 of 2020 and 44842 of 2020 respectively and therefore, the applicant is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity. It is lastly contended that the applicant has no other criminal history. He is in jail since 30.09.2020 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.
Learned AGA appearing for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts and legal submissions as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.
Having heard submissions of learned counsel of both sides, considering nature of accusation, severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and another, (2018) 3 SCC 22, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a case of bail.
Let the applicant- Neeraj [email protected] Ram involved in Case Crime No. 247 of 2020, under Section 8/21 of N.D.P.S. Act and 18A/28, 18 (c)/27 (b) (i) Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, Police Station Attarsuiya, District Allahabad/Prayagraj, be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:
1. The applicant will attend and co-operate the trial proceedings pending before the court concerned on the date fixed after release.
2. He will not tamper with the witnesses.
3. He will not indulge in any illegal activities during the bail period.
The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.
It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.
In case of breach of of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.
The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.
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 :- 19.8.2021 Noman
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Neeraj <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection" class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="affbddc6dfcedbc7c6ef">[email&#xA0;protected]</a> Ram vs State Of U.P.

Court

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

JudgmentDate
19 August, 2021
Judges
  • Rajiv Joshi