Allowed

Ajay Garg v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC21 Sept 2023ABAIL/12874/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail application allowed under S. 438 CrPC for alleged manufacturing and stocking of illegal drugs. Bail granted till trial end with bond and conditions against tampering or fleeing.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted till end of trial on personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties; conditions imposed on appearance, witness tampering, and leaving India.

Ajay Garg Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:185986

¶2

Court No. - 73

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12874 of 2022

¶4

Applicant :- Ajay Garg Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Daga Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the material available on record.

¶7

This application for anticipatory bail has been filed by applicant- Ajay Garg in connection with Criminal Case No. 4973 of 2007, under sections 18/27 Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940, P.S.Nai Mandi, District- Muzaffarnagar.

¶8

As per prosecution case on 3.1.2005 at about 8.00 pm a raid was conducted by Senior Inspector of Drugs, Saharanpur Division and other departmental officers and police personals at the resident of the accused applicant Ajay Garg, wherein he was found involved in manufacturing and stocking for sale of allopathic medicines illegally in his own house. A huge stock of such illegal medicine was found and equipments and packaging materials etc. being used in manufacturing of medicines were also seized by police on spot and samples of drugs for lab test were also collected by Inspector of Drugs, Saharanpur. On this complaint, the accused was summoned on 3.9.2007 to face the trial under Section 18/27 Drugs & Cosmetics Act by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffar Nagar.

¶9

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has apprehension of arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. It is further submitted that it is a case of double jeopardy, which is not permissible under law. It is further submitted that earlier the applicant was granted interim protection by this Court vide orders dated 25.1.2023 and 17.7.2023, which was extended on different dates and the said liberty was not misused by the applicant and has been cooperative during the course of investigation / trial. It is

¶10

further submitted that no custodial interrogation is required in this matter from the applicant and as such he is entitled for bail.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.

¶12

It appears from the perusal of the record that a criminal complaint wherein the present anticipatory bail application has been moved, was filed under Section 18/27 Drugs & Cosmetics Act wherein there is provision for filing of a complaint case, whereas the F.I.R. as Case Crime No. 9/2005 was lodged under Sections 274, 275, 276 I.P.C., 18/27 Indian Drugs & Cosmetics Act and 18/20 N.D.P.S. Act. It appears that since a complaint filed for the offence committed under the Indian Drugs Act, a separate criminal complaint has been filed against the present applicant, but so far as the liberty of bail is concerned, as a matter of fact, applicant has already been granted bail in Case Crime No.9 of 2005 by the trial court itself and the order granting bail to the applicant has been annexed at page 40 of the affidavit filed along with the present application. Now no fruitful purpose will be served to send the applicant again in jail for the same offence.

¶13

In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has settled the controversy finally by holding the anticipatory bail need not be of limited duration invariably. In appropriate case, it can continue upto conclusion of trial.

¶14

It has been further held therein that anticipatory bail granted can, depending on the conduct and behavior of the accused, continue after filing of the charge sheet till end of trial.

¶15

It has been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that while considering an application for grant of anticipatory bail, the court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence including intimidating witnesses, likelihood of fleeing justice, such as leaving the country, etc. It has further been held that Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion.

¶16

Hence, considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending

¶17

facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion of the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant till end of the trial in the matter.

¶18

The anticipatory bail application is allowed.

¶19

In the event of arrest of the applicant in the aforesaid case, he shall be released on anticipatory bail till end of the trial on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions :-

¶20

(i) The applicant shall make himself available before the court concerned on the date fixed in the matter;

¶21

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him / her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶22

(iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport, the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. Concerned.

¶23

In case of default of any of the conditions, same may be a ground for cancellation of protection granted to the applicant.

¶24

Order Date :- 21.9.2023 ss

¶25

Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ajay Garg v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Garg v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

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

Mohammad Mohsin Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd. Aqil and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Nitin Singh Alias Trivendar Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Firoz Vs State of U.P.

Ranjana Pandey Vs State of U.P.

Raj Kumar Sahu Vs State of U.P. and Another