Allowed

Rajesh Yadav v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC5 May 2020BAIL/12536/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Extraordinary chambers during COVID-19, the Court allowed a bail application by the applicant, who was in custody for N-D-P-S charges. The Court held that the applicant had made out a case for bail under Article 21, referencing Dataram Singh.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on execution of personal bond without sureties initially; to furnish sureties within a month after normal court functioning; various conditions imposed for attendance and trial cond

Rajesh Yadav Vs State of U.P. — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

In Chamber

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12536 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Rajesh Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sudarshan Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

This bail application has been listed before me pursuant to the direction of Hon'ble the Chief Justice dated 04.04.2020 for consideration, therefore, same is being decided in Chamber under the extraordinary conditions prevailing now a days. Written objection dated 4.5.2020 filed by learned A.G.A. Shri Ajay Kumar Pathak, is taken on record.

¶6

I have perused the bail application filed on behalf of Rajesh Yadav, who is languishing in jail since 28.11.2019 in connection with Case Crime No.361 of 2019, u/s 8/22 N.D.P.S. Act, P.S.-G.R.P. Varanasi, District-Varanasi.

¶7

The F.I.R. was got registered on 28.11.2019 by one Sub Inspector Shri Buddhi Sagar yadav. As per the version of the F.I.R. after getting a tip from the informer the police has arrested the applicant from Platform No.1 of Railway Station Cantt. Varanasi and recovered 120 gm psychotropic powder. It is contended that though the recovery is from the crowded place but none of the independent witness has confirmed the alleged recovery. The recovery suffers from vice of non compliance of Sections 42, 43, 50, 52 and 100 of the N.D.P.S. Act and just because of having criminal history the applicant has been falsely implicated. In the F.I.R. it is mentioned that there is recovery of white psychotropic substance but there is nothing on record to show that the alleged psychotropic powder is Alprazolam tablets which is shown slightly above to the commercial quantity. The applicant is languishing in jail since 28.11.2019.

¶8

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence on record regarding complicity of the accused, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018)3 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶9

Let the applicant, Rajesh Yadav, who is involved in Case Crime No.361 of 2019, u/s 8/22 N.D.P.S. Act, P.S.-G.R.P. Varanasi, District-Varanasi, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶10

(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE 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.

¶11

(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 IPC.

¶12

(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., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF 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 IPC.

¶13

(iv) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) 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.

¶14

(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL

¶15

WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT.

¶16

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶17

Since the bail application has been decided under extra-ordinary circumstances, thus in the interest of justice following additional conditions are being imposed just to facilitate the applicant to be released on bail forthwith. Needless to mention that these additional conditions are imposed to cope with emergent condition-:

¶18

1. The applicant shall be enlarged on bail on execution of personal bond without sureties till normal functioning of the courts is restored. The accused will furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the court below within a month after normal functioning of the courts are restored.

¶19

2. The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.

¶20

3. The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.

¶21

4. 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.

¶22

Order Date :- 5.5.2020 M. Kumar

Rajesh Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Yadav 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Banshi Alias Karan Vs State of U.P.

Ram Sharan Vs State of U.P.

Savej Vs State of U.P.

Rahul @Guddu Vs State of U.P.

Rakesh Kumar Prajapati Vs State of U.P.

Saalim Vs State of U.P.