Allowed

Rajesh Rajput @ Happy v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC3 Dec 2022BAIL/28602/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application where the applicant, charged under the NDPS Act for possession of Alprazolam, was granted bail balancing Article 21, commercial quantity issues, and provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail subject to personal bond and two sureties, conditions against tampering, cooperation, and further criminal activity.

Rajesh Rajput @ Happy Vs State of U.P. — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 90

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28602 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Rajesh Rajput @ Happy Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Balbeer Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shiv Shanker Prasad,J.

¶5

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

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri S.K. Ojha, learned AGA for the State appearing for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶7

By means of the present application, the applicant- Rajesh Rajput @ Happy seeks bail in Case Crime No.0285 of 2021, under Sections 8/22 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station- Hariparvat, DistrictAgra, during the pendency of trial.

¶8

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is said to have been arrested on 30.07.2021 along with 240 gm of 'Alprazolam powder'. The applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and to victimize him. No incriminating article has been recovered from the possession of the applicant. There is no independent witness to support the prosecution version. There is no chemical analyst report that the alleged recovery is a contraband article. There is no compliance of mandatory provisions of NDPS Act with regard to search and seizure. Criminal history of four cases has been duly explained in para 4 of the rejoinder affidavit. In Case Crime No. 279 of 2010, the applicant has confessed the offence under Section 379 I.P.C. and copy of the bail order is annexed as Annexure No. R.A.-1 to the rejoinder affidavit. In the second case being Case Crime No. 1201 of 2010, under Section 379, 427 and 511 I.P.C. the applicant has been acquitted by the court below and copy of the bail order is annexed as Annexure No.R.A.-2. The applicant has also been acquitted by the court below in the third case being Case Crime No. 1208 of 2010, under Section 18/20 N.D.P.S. Act. In the fourth case being Case Crime No. 47 of 2019, under Section 457 I.P.C., the applicant is stated to be on bail but the bail order is not traced out. The applicant is languishing in jail since 31.07.2021 and he deserves to be

¶9

released on bail. In case, the applicant is released on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶10

Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant on the ground that the recovery is of commercial quantity. The applicant has actively participated in the commission of the aforesaid offence.

¶11

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.

¶12

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 (supra) , 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.

¶13

Let the applicant- Rajesh Rajput @ Happy , who is involved in the aforementioned 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.

¶14

The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶15

The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶16

The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶17

In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶18

Order Date :- 3.12.2022 Abhishek Singh

¶19

Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SINGH Date: 2022.12.06 11:32:47 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rajesh Rajput @ Happy v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Rajput @ Happy 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

Dharmendra Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Ashwani Singh Vs State of U.P.

Dilip Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Nadeem Vs State of U.P.

Tehseem Vs State of U.P.

Haseen Vs State of U.P.