Allowed

Robin Kumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC16 Dec 2022BAIL/26181/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court granted bail to Robin Kumar charged under NDPS Act for possession of ganja. Relied on Union of India v. Shiv Shankar Keshari and Article 21. Imposed conditions regarding absence, tampering, and presence during specific trial stages.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions of presence, non-tampering, and specific court appearances.

Robin Kumar Vs State of U.P. — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 74

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26181 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Robin Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Dhirendra Kumar Agrahari,Nishi Mehrotra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.

¶5

Rejoinder affidavit filed today on behalf of the applicant, is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant Robin Kumar with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.47 of 2022, under Section 8/20 N.D.P.S.Act, P.S. Adalhot, District Mirzapur during pendency of the trial.

¶8

Allegation in the FIR is that one quintal 43 kg contraband ganja has been recovered from Bolero Car No.JH-04-H9993. It is alleged in the FIR that applicant was sat beside the driver. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has no concerned with the alleged recovery. He being a passenger of Bolero Car, on payment to driver, he sat beside the driver in the vehicle. Applicant is labour and has no criminal history. There is no chemical examination report regarding contraband ganja . Recovered ganja from the possession of applicant is false and planted. Recovered contraband ganja is below commercial quantity and mandatory provisions of N.D.P.S. Act have not been complied with while arresting the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 31.03.2022. In case, the applicant is enlarged on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail and cooperate in trial. At the stage of consideration of bail it cannot be decided whether offer given to the applicant and his consent obtained was voluntary. These are the questions of fact which can be determined only during trial and not at the present stage. In case of prima facie noncompliance of mandatory provision of Section 50 the accused is entitled to be released on bail within the meaning of Section 37 of N.D.P.S. Act.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant and has argued that recovered contraband substance is in huge quantity and applicant should not be granted bail. Learned AGA also argued that applicant is owner of the vehicle as vehicle is

¶10

in the name of Sanjay Kumar Dey s/o Robin Kumar Dey and applicant is Robin Kumar, father of vehicle owner.

¶11

In reply of counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State, learned counsel for the applicant states that applicant is Robin Kumar s/o Om Pal Singh, he is not same person.

¶12

The Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. Shiv Shankar Keshari (2007) 7 SCC 798 has held that the court while considering the application for bail with reference to Section 37 of the Act is not called upon to record a finding of not guilty. It is for the limited purpose essentially confined to the question of releasing the accused on bail that the court is called upon to see if there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and records its satisfaction about the existence of such grounds. But the court has not to consider the matter as if it is pronouncing a judgment of acquittal and recording a finding of not guilty.

¶13

Considering the facts of the case and keeping in mind, the ratio of the Apex Court's judgment in the case of Union of India vs. Shiv Shankar Keshari (2007) 7 SCC 798, larger mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused-applicant, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interest of the public/State and other circumstances, but without expressing any opinion on the merits, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail.

¶14

Let the applicant Robin Kumar , who is involved in aforesaid case crime, 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.

¶15

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

¶16

(ii) 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.

¶17

(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on

¶18

each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶19

(iv) In case the applicant misuse 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.

¶20

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.

¶21

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

¶22

Order Date :- 16.12.2022/SKD

¶23

Digitally signed by SURJIT KUMAR DEY Date: 2022.12.19 10:27:10 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Robin Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Robin Kumar 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

Dipu @ Deep Singh Vs State of U.P.

Rakshit Birthare Vs Union Of India and 2 Others

Amit Bhature Vs State of U.P.

Rahul Rashmikant. Gabhawala Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mangal Singh @ Kanchole Vs State of U.P.

Vikas Jaiswal @ Mitti Vs State of U.P.