Allowed

Rajeshwar Oraon v. U.O.I. Thru. Jr. Intelligence Officer Ncb Lucknow

Allahabad HC24 Jan 2022/9950/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a bail application for an applicant implicated under Section 27A and 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act. The court observed that the applicant faced no other evidence except his ownstatement under Section 67 and no material was recovered from him.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount with specific conditions regarding tampering, presence, and abuse of liberty of bail.

Rajeshwar Oraon Vs U.O.I. Thru. Jr. Intelligence Officer… — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 13

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9950 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Rajeshwar Oraon Opposite Party :- U.O.I. Thru. Jr. Intelligence Officer Ncb Lucknow Counsel for Applicant :- Rohit Tripathi,Shishir Srivastava,Syed Zulfiqar Husain Naqv

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- Akhilesh Kumar Awasthi

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Akhilesh Kumar Awasthi, learned counsel for Narcotics Control Bureau and perused the record.

¶7

As per the prosecution story, allegedly 10 kg. and 400 gram of Opium was seized from one Mahindra Bolero vehicle. Consequently, the case was registered against two persons, namely, Lallan Yadav and Yusuf Khan. During investigation, the applicant was summoned under Section 67 of the N.D.P.S. Act. The statement under Section 67 of the N.D.P.S.was given and on the basis of this statement, the applicant has been falsely implicated and has been arrayed as accused for having committed the offences under Sections 27A and 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he has made specific pleading in paragraph-13 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, where he has said that the the applicant has the business of micro banking/Bank Mitra for which he is running a common center. This facility allows an individual customers to withdraw and deposit money from the their accounts using the adhaar link. It is a commission based business and the commission is paid by the banks. The accused Lallan Yadav is an old acquaintance of the applicant and the applicant on several occasions provided his services to him by providing cash from his own bank account where money was deposited by someone known to Lallan Yadav. At no point of time, the applicant had any knowledge about the source of money being deposited in his account, neither there is any evidence to indicate that the applicant had even knowledge about the source of money which is being deposited in this business account. The statement under Section 67 of N.D.P.S. Act alone is not enough to implicate the applicant as an accused in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the Case of Tuffan Singh versus State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2021 4 SSC page 01.

¶9

It is lastly submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶10

Learned Shri Akhilesh Kumar Awasthi, learned counsel for Narcotics Control Bureau opposed the prayer for bail but he could not dispute the facts that neither anything has been recovered from the applicant nor there is any evidence found against him.

¶11

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and also considering the facts that the applicant is in jail since 16.03.2021, he has no criminal history, prima facie, at this stage, it appears that there is no evidence other

¶12

than statement of the applicant under Section 67 of N.D.P.S. Act and provision of Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act stands satisfied, and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶13

Accordingly, bail application is allowed .

¶14

Let the applicant, Rajeshwar Oraon, involved in Case Crime No.27 of 2020, under Sections 27A and 29 N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station - NCB Zonal Unit Lucknow, District - Luknow, 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 with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶15

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶16

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶17

(iii) 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 or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶18

(iv) 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.

¶19

(v) 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.

¶20

(vi) 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.

¶21

Order Date :- 24.1.2022 KR

Rajeshwar Oraon v. U.O.I. Thru. Jr. Intelligence Officer Ncb Lucknow

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajeshwar Oraon v. U.O.I. Thru. Jr. Intelligence Officer Ncb Lucknow

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

Prem Vs State of U.P.

Aanand Tiwari Vs State of U.P.

Raju Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Lucknow

Lalit Tharu Vs State of U.P. Thru Its Secy Home Deptt Civil Secy U.P.

Manish Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. U.P. Lucknow

Rakesh Kumar Kushwaha Vs State of U.P.