The single Judge allowed a bail application filed by Suman Kumar accused under the NDPS Act, directing release on personal and local sureties subject to strict conditions regarding court appearances and procedural compliance for the subsequent trial.
Released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 90
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31974 of 2022
Applicant :- Suman Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Brij Lal Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Shiv Shanker Prasad,J.
Heard Mr. Brij Lal Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Amit Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the State as well as perused the material on record.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant- Suman Kumar with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 177 of 2022, under Sections 8/20/60 (3) N.D.P.S. Act, Police StationKhaga, District-Fatehpur, during the pendency of the trial.
As per the prosecution case, on an information received from a Police Informer that a person, who was carrying contraband, was coming from Prayagraj to Kanpur by a Sleety colour car, the informant and other Police personnels reached NG-02 Majhilgaon Chawki and arrested a person, who disclosed his name as Suman Kumar (applicant) and from whose car 76 k.g. Ganja has been recovered.
The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present first information report lodged by the Police is nothing but a bundle of lie and the same has been lodged only for exploiting the applicant by indulging his name in a fake, false and frivolous case. The entire prosecution story as unfolded in the first information report is absolutely a self-made story projected by the informant. It is next argued that the alleged recovery of 76 k.g. Ganja shown against the applicant is planted one by the Police as there is no independent or public witness of the alleged recovery. There is also no direct or indirect evidence on record from the which it is established that the applicant is involved in the commission of the alleged offence. Compliance of Sections 42 and 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act has also not been made nor any inventory in compliance of Section 52 of N.D.P.S. has been prepared. There is also no report of the Forensic Science Laboratory as to whether the alleged recovered item is contraband or not. The applicant has no criminal history except the present one. It is next contended that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail. The applicant is in jail since 12th May, 2022. The applicant has undergone more than seven months of incarceration as on date.
Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but he could not dispute the factual submissions as urged by the learned counsel for the applicant.
Considering the nature of the offence, material/evidence brought on record, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties as well as the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Versus State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 , let the applicant involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:-
(i) 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.
(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 of the Indian Penal Code.
(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. 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.
(iv) 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.
It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.
(Shiv Shanker Prasad, J.)
Order Date :- 14.12.2022 Sushil/-
Digitally signed by SUSHIL KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.12.16 10:03:30 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to grant bail to the applicant accused in a narcotics offence involving ganja.
Whether conditions of bail can be imposed to ensure the applicant's presence during trial.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dataram Singh Versus State of U.P. and anotherReferred¶10
(2018) 3 SCC 22 · Who else cites this
5 provisions across 3 enactments
Suman Kumar
Shiv Shanker Prasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
