Allowed

Rajendra Kumar Jaiswal v. Union of India

Allahabad HC2 Dec 2021BAIL/12562/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single-judge court allowed a criminal bail application filed by Rajendra Kumar Jaiswal, a taxi driver accused under the NDPS Act. The bench found merit in the claim of false implication, lack of criminal history, and distinct lack of association with the main accused, granting release on personal bond and two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in like amount, subject to conditions regarding tampering with evidence, influencing witnesses, and appearing before the trial

Rajendra Kumar Jaiswal Vs Union of India — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 66

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12562 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Rajendra Kumar Jaiswal Opposite Party :- Union of India Counsel for Applicant :- Shri Prakash Dwivedi,Awadhesh Kumar Tiwari,Satya Prakash Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- Ashish Pandey,Pranay Krishna

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Satya Prakash Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anupam Anand, learned brief holder for the State and Sri Ashish Pandey, learned counsel for the Union of India-Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB).

¶6

A first information report was lodged as N.C.B. Case No.31 of 2020 at Police Station-Chopan, DistrictSonebhadra under Section 8(C)/20/25/29 of the N.D.P.S. Act.

¶7

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by learned Incharge Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (NDPS Act), Sonebhadra on 04.02.2021.

¶8

The applicant is in jail since 07.11.2020, pursuant to the said F.I.R.

¶9

Sri Satya Prakash Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. The applicant is a taxi driver, whose services were engaged by the main accused-Jitendra to ferry him to a destination. The main accused-Jitendra intended to pick up the consignment of the prohibited substance of Ganja. The

¶10

applicant has no other association with the said accused-Jitendra. The applicant was not aware of the purpose for which the said accused-Jitendra had hired his taxi. The role of the applicant is completely distinct from that of accused-Jitendra as well as other accused persons. Apart from the instant case, the applicant does not have any criminal history. Lastly it is contended by the learned counsel for applicant that the applicant shall not abscond and will fully cooperate in the criminal law proceedings. The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence nor influence the witnesses in any manner.

¶11

Learned A.G.A could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. He, however, does not dispute the fact that the applicant does not have any criminal history apart from this case.

¶12

Sri Ashish Pandey, learned counsel for the Union of India-Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB), contends that the huge quantify was recovered and same cannot be planted. The mandatory provisions of the Act have been complied with.

¶13

Courts have taken notice of the overcrowding of jails during the current pandemic situation (Ref.: Suo Motu Writ Petition (c) No. 1/2020, Contagion of COVID 19 Virus in prisons before the Supreme Court of India). These circumstances shall also be factored in while considering bail applications on behalf of accused persons.

¶14

I see merit in the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant and hold that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶15

In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.

¶16

Let the applicant-Rajendra Kumar Jaiswal involved in N.C.B. Case No.31 of 2020 at Police Station-Chopan, District-Sonebhadra under Section 8(C)/20/25/29 of the N.D.P.S. Act, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions.

¶17

The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶18

The applicant will not influence any witness.

¶19

The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted. 4. The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶20

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶21

Order Date :- 2.12.2021 Ashish Tripathi

Rajendra Kumar Jaiswal v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Kumar Jaiswal v. Union of India

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

Vishal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Arun @ Monu Vs State of U.P.

Ram Kripal Vs State of U.P.

Sonu Kumar Gond Vs State of U.P.

Anil Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Jishan Vs State of U.P.