Criminal court granted bail to Riyazuddin in an N.D.P.S. Act case upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions regarding attendance and non-abuse of liberty.
Release on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount subject to specific attendance and undertaking conditions.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 75
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33673 of 2019
Applicant :- Riyazuddin @ Rajju Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sudhir Dixit, Utkarsh Dixit, Zia Naz Zaidi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Supplementary affidavit has been filed in Court today, is taken on record.
Heard Sri Utkarsh Dixit, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri O.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.
The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant - Riyazuddin @ Rajju with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 523 of 2019, under Section 21/22 of N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station- Quarsi, District- Aligarh , during pendency of trial.
It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. As per the version of the F.I.R., 970g diazepam powder has been recovered from the possession of the applicant. It has been argued that there is no compliance of Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act. It is next submitted that false recovery has been planted against the applicant to implicate him in the offence, the said recovery has not been witnessed by any independent witness. There is no analysis report of concerned forensic science laboratory from which it is established that the recovered is diazepam powder. An F.I.R was lodged under Section 13 Gambling Act, as Case Crime No. 522 of 2019 against the applicant for falsely implicating him, in which he has already been granted bail by the lower court vide order dated 05.09.2019. The applicant is languishing in jail since 08.06.2019. The applicant has no criminal history except in the present case. In case, he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial by all means. Lastly, it is submitted that there is no chance of applicant fleeing away from judicial process or tampering with the witnesses.
Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail
he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.
Considering the nature of the offence, provision for initiation of cases and release of the accused in N.D.P.S. Act, material/evidence brought on record, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties as well as the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 , let the applicant involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions that :-
(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.
(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.
It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.
Order Date :- 18.10.2019 Priya
3 issues framed by the court
Whether to grant bail to the accused under the N.D.P.S. Act given allegations of false implication and lack of compliance with Section 50.
Whether the accused poses a flight risk or threat to the judicial process warranting denial of bail.
What conditions must be imposed for the release of the applicant on bail.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and anotherDistinguished¶11
(2018) 3 SCC 22 · Who else cites this
5 provisions across 3 enactments
Riyazuddin @ Rajju
State Of U.P.
Manju Rani Chauhan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
