Allowed

Rajdeep and Another v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC17 May 2019BAIL/19808/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In bail application before Court No. - 79, the court allowed the applicants to be released on bail in a case involving Sections 60, 63, 72 of the Excise Act and Section 420 IPC. The applicants, driver and cleaner, claimed unconscious possession of liquor, while the State opposed based on full admission and recovery. The court allowed bail subject to personal bond and conditions.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicants on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in like amount to the satisfaction of the court.

Rajdeep and Another Vs State of U.P. — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 19808 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Rajdeep And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶6

By means of this application, the applicants Rajdeep and Manjeet, who are involved in Case Crime No. 100 of 2019, under Sections 60, 63, 72 Excise Act and Section 420 I.P.C., P.S. Chhata, District Mathura, are seeking enlargement on bail.

¶7

It has been submitted by learned counsel for applicants that applicants are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this very case crime number. They are of no criminal antecedents. They are driver and cleaner of Truck concerned, over which items were loaded by transporter and under bona fide belief they were carrying the same to its destination, in between, they have been apprehended and huge quantity of liquor was recovered from the above Truck, as was written in recovery memo, but it was in unconscious possession of both the accused applicants. Hence, bail has been prayed for.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for bail with this contention that huge recovery of liquor is there and both the accused applicants were driver and cleaner of above Truck.

¶9

The accused applicants are of no criminal antecedents. They are admitting the factum of recovery of liquor from Truck on the above date, time and place, while it was being driven by them. Meaning thereby, occurrence is fully admitted. Now, was it under conscious possession or under unconscious possession is a question of trial to be seen in evidence, but owner of the truck and transporter of above consignment will be made accused on the basis of above admission and confession made by accused applicants. Investigation will take its recourse and there is assertion for no interference or intervention or tempering with investigation rather full cooperation in investigation, inquiry and trial by accused applicants.

¶10

Considering the rival submissions, nature of accusation,

¶11

severity of punishment in case of conviction and nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness and prima facie case, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, this bail application is allowed.

¶12

Let the applicants Rajdeep and Manjeet be released on bail in Case Crime No. 100 of 2019, under Sections 60, 63, 72 Excise Act and Section 420 I.P.C., P.S. Chhata, District Mathura, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned, subject to following conditions:

¶13

The applicants will not tamper with the evidence.

¶14

The applicants will not indulge in any criminal activity.

¶15

The applicants will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and co-operate in the trial.

¶16

The applicants will appear regularly on each and every date fixed by the trial court unless their personal appearance is exempted through counsel by the court concerned.

¶17

In the event of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the court below will be at liberty to proceed to cancel their bail.

¶18

Order Date :- 17.5.2019 NS

Rajdeep and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajdeep and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dinesh Dhyani Vs State of U.P.

Dinesh Dhyani Vs State of U.P.

Dinesh Dhyani Vs State of U.P.

Sukhdev Vs State of U.P.

Manish Vs State of U.P.

Shekhar Vs State of U.P.