The single judge granted bail to the applicant in an NDPS case involving narcotics recovery, relying on procedural lapses in search-seizure and commercial quantity arguments against inferring guilt at bail stage.
Released on bail by furnishing personal bond and two sureties subject to undertakings not to tamper with evidence or commit other crimes.
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. - 42233 of 2022
Applicant :- Ajeet Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Sharma,Prashant Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Shiv Shanker Prasad,J.
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.
By means of the present application, the applicant- Ajeet Kumar seeks bail in Case Crime No.219 of 2022, under Sections 8/21/22 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station- Hathras Junction, District- Hathras during the pendency of trial.
As per the FIR allegation the applicant is said to have been arrested on 5.8.2022 along with 100 gm of 'smack' and 600 gm 'Diazepam'.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is quite innocent and has falsely been 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. The applicant is languishing in jail since 5.8.2022 without having any previous criminal history and he deserves to be released on bail. In case, the applicant is released on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
Per contra Sri S. K. Ojha, learned A.G.A. has vehemently 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.
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.
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.
Let the applicant- Ajeet Kumar , 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.
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.
Order Date :- 15.12.2022/Abhishek Singh
Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SINGH Date: 2022.12.19 17:22:09 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the applicant involved in prosecution under the NDPS Act.
Whether the lack of independent witnesses or chemical analyst report warrants bail release.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Union of India vs. Shiv Shankar KeshariApplied¶10
Union of India vs. Shiv Shankar Keshari, (2007) 7 SCC 798 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ajeet Kumar
Shiv Shanker Prasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Shiv Shanker Prasad
Parties & counsel
