The High Court allowed a bail application filed by Hukum Singh accused under N.D.P.S. Act in a narcotics case, granting release on personal bond and two sureties subject to specific conditions regarding attendance and absence.
Release on bail condition upon furnishing personal bond and two local sureties of like amount.
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. - 38168 of 2019
Applicant :- Hukum Singh Opposite Party :- Union Of India Counsel for Applicant :- Gopeshwar Sahai Bisaria Counsel for Opposite Party :- Ashish Pandey
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant in Court today is taken on record.
Heard Mr. Gopeshwar Sahai Bisaria, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Ashish Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite party as well as perused the material on record.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant-Hukum Singh with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 25 of 2019, under Sections 8 (B), 18/29 N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station-Central Bureau of Narcotics, District-Lucknow, during the pendency of the trial.
As per the prosecution story, acting on a specific input that one person i.e. the co-accused Dinesh Kumar Verma @ Fullu is going to Milak by train to deliver a consignment of Opium (Apheem) to his associate i.e. the applicant outside the main exit gate of Milak Railway Station on 26th June, 2019, the officers of the Narcotics Control Bureau, Lucknow after obtaining permission from the higher officers and completing all legal formalities, moved from the Narcotics Control Bureau, Lucknow and reached outside the main exit gate of Railway Station-Milak, District-Rampur. After reaching there, the team of Narcotics Control Bureau approached two persons, who were already present outside the Milak railway station. On enquiry, they introduced themselves as Baal Singh and Indra Singh. Thereafter, the team of Narcotics Control Bureau apprised both the aforesaid two persons about the information available with the team and requested them to be the independent witnesses during the preventive operation which was supposed to be conducted by the team and they agreed upon. After that they all waited for the said train to arrive at Milak. Subsequently, at around 2155 on 26th June, 2019, the said train arrived and the passengers started to come outside the Milak railway station through main gate. After identifying the the co-accused Dinesh Kumar Verma @ Fullu, who was carrying a black coloured carry bag on his shoulder, the team along with two independent witnesses kept strict vigil on him and it was observed that one person i.e. the applicant came at outside of Milak railway station and met the applicant. Thereafter the team surrounded them and after disclosing their identity, took them to Milak
Police Station and after that they had been searched on which 2.050 kilograms of Opium had been recovered. On interrogation, the co-accused Dinesh Kumar Verma @ Fullu had confessed that the co-accused Pawan Kumar Dangi gave him the above said contraband and told him to deliver it to his associate i.e. the applicant outside the main exit gate of Milak Railway Station on which the applicant would pay Rs. 1,20,000 in cash to him for his contraband. The applicant also confessed that he was about to pay Rs. 1,90/000 as total cost of the said contraband.
It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent. Entire prosecution set up by the complainant/informant is totally concocted and fabricated. Nothing has been recovered from the possession of the applicant and the alleged recovery shown against the co-accused Dinesh Kumar Verma @ Fullu is planted by the informant. There is no independent witness of alleged recovery of 2.050 Opium. With regard to alleged recovery of 2.050 kilograms of Opium, the search has not been made before the Gazetted Officer or any Magistrate, therefore mandatory provision of Section 50 of N.D.P.S. Act has not been complied with. There is also no compliance of Sections 42, 55 and 57 of the N.D.P.S. Act. The alleged recovery shown against the co-accused Dinesh Kumar Verma @ Fullu is below the commercial quantity. It is further argued that the applicant has no concern with the alleged recovery and he has been falsely dragged in the present case by the informant. There is also no analysis report of any Analyst on the basis of which it can be said that the recovered material is contraband. The applicant has no criminal history. It is next contended that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail. The applicant is in jail since 27th June, 2019.
Per contra, Mr. Ashish Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite party has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but he could not dispute the factual submissions as urged by the learned counsel for the applicant.
Considering the the nature of the offence, 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 Versus State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 , let the applicant involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:-
(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 229A 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.
(Manju Rani Chauhan, J.)
Order Date :- 24.10.2019
Sushil/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in a case involving violation of N.D.P.S. Act during the pendency of trial.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dataram Singh Versus State of U.P. and anotherReferred¶12
(2018) 3 SCC 22 · Who else cites this
6 provisions across 3 enactments
Hukum Singh
Manju Rani Chauhan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
