Allowed

Raj Kumar Dangi v. Union of India and Another

Allahabad HC26 Aug 2022BAIL/9973/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Judgment in a criminal bail application under NDPS Act where applicant alleged false implication and non-compliance of recovery provisions. Court granted bail as first implication with no criminal history, applying Apex Court ratio on bail consideration.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail with personal bond and two reliable sureties subject to specified conditions for appearance and procedure.

Raj Kumar Dangi Vs Union of India and Another — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Reserved on 18.8.2022 Delivered on 26.8.2022

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9973 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Raj Kumar Dangi Opposite Party :- Union Of India And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ali Hasan,Istiyaq Ali Counsel for Opposite Party :- Krishna Agarawal,A.G.A.,Sudarshan Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Ali Hasan, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Krishna Agrawal, learned counsel for the informant; learned A.G.A for the State and perused the material on record.

¶6

This bail application has been preferred by the accusedapplicant, Raj Kumar Dangi, who is involved in Case Crime No. 01 of 2022, under Section 8/18 N.D.P.S. Act, Police StationKendriya Narcotics Bureau (C.N.B.), Bareilly, District- Bareilly .

¶7

There is allegation of recovery of 5.300 Kg. of illegal opium from the applicant and co-accused. The recovery of 2.300 Kg. of opium has been made from the applicant.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. The provisions of Section 50 of N.D.P.S. Act were not complied. The commercial quantity of contraband is 02.500 Kg. 2.300 Kg. of opium has been recovered from the applicant, which is below the commercial quantity. The provision of Sections 52 & 57 have not also been complied by the other side. The applicant has no criminal antecedent whatsoever. The recovery was allegedly made from the knee cap of applicant and therefore compliance of Section 50 of N.D.P.S. Act was mandatory, which has not been done. The applicant is in jail since 09.01.2022 and he undertakes that he will not misuse liberty of bail, if granted.

¶9

Sri Krishna Agrawal, learned counsel for Central Narcotic Bureau, has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant. He has submitted that based upon the secret information, team of S.T.F. and C.N.B. was constituted and the applicant was apprehended and the recovery of the alleged contraband was made. He has submitted that as per the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Ram Samujh, reported in 1999 (39) ACC 643, the Narcotics Drugs are causing deadly impact on the society. If the accuseds are released temporarily, in all probability, they would continue with their nefarious activities. Learned counsel the C.N.B. has relied upon the number of judgements of this Court as well as Apex Court in support of his submission.

¶10

He has further opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre-trial stage who is involved in supplying contraband, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activity. The "reasonable grounds" mentioned in Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of NDPS Act mean something more than prima facie ground. It implies substantial probable causes for believing that accused is not guilty of the offence charged and points to existence of such facts and circumstances which are sufficient to hold that accused is not guilty.

¶11

After hearing the rival contentions, this Court finds that there is allegation of recovery of opium from the applicant, which is below the commercial quantity. The adverse effect of the drugs on the society cannot be denied. However, in the present case, this is first implication of the applicant. He has no criminal history to his credit. In the counter affidavit, no averments have been made that

¶12

2 of 4

¶13

trial of the applicant has commenced. Even the copy of the complaint has not been brought on record.

¶14

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.

¶15

Considering the facts of the case and keeping in mind the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, 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.

¶16

Let applicant be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions-

¶17

3 of 4

¶18

(i) 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;

¶19

(ii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail 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

(iii) 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 default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his 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

Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶23

Order Date :- 26.8.2022

¶24

Ruchi Agrahari

¶25

4 of 4

¶26

Digitally signed by RUCHI AGRAHARI Date: 2022.08.29 12:10:04 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Raj Kumar Dangi v. Union of India and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kumar Dangi v. Union of India and Another

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

Namit Jain Vs State of U.P.

Pramod Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Sachin Vs State of U.P.

Dileep Verma Vs Union of India

Rajkishore Dwivedi Vs State of Up through Secretary Home U.P. Lucknow

Mohit Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. through Secretary Home