Allowed

Lavlesh Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC12 Jun 2023BAIL/25018/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under the N.D.P.S. Act, the court allowed the applicant's release after observing that a co-accused in the same facts had already been enlarged on bail, finding it a fit case for bail without adjudging innocence.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties to the satisfaction of the court.

Lavlesh Singh Vs State of U.P. — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:126097

¶2

Court No. - 75

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25018 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Lavlesh Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sudhanshu Kumar Singh,Kameshwar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Sudhanshu Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State.

¶7

Perused the record.

¶8

This application for bail has been filed by applicant-Lavlesh Singh seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 0160 of 2023, under Sections 8/20/29 N.D.P.S. Act, Police StationBisanda, District-Banda during the pendency of trial.

¶9

At the very outset, the learned counsel for applicant contends that co-accused Pappu Rajput has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 31.05.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 24417 of 2023 (Pappu Rajput Vs. State of U.P.). For ready reference, the same is re-produced hereinunder:-

¶10

"1. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶11

2. This bail application has been preferred by the accused-applicant, Pappu Rajput, who is involved in Case Crime No. 160 of 2023, under Section 8/20/29 of N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station- Bisanda, District- Banda,

¶12

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive, on the basis of planted recovery of 20 kg of ganja which is equal to commercial quantity. It is further contended that mandatory provision of Section 50 of N.D.P.S Act has not been complied with. At the stage of consideration of bail it cannot be decided whether offer given to the applicant and his consent obtained was voluntary. These are the questions of fact which can be determined only during trial and not at the present stage. In case of prima facie noncompliance of mandatory provision of Section 50 the accused is entitled to be released on bail within the meaning of Section 37 of N.D.P.S. Act. The

¶13

procedure of sampling adopted is in violation of Standing Order / Instruction No.1 of 1989 dated 13.6.1989 issued by the Government of India under Section 52 A of N.D.P.S. Act. The applicant has no criminal history. He is in jail since 23.04.2023 and he undertakes that he will not misuse liberty, if granted.

¶14

4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre-trial stage who is involved in supplying contraband, therefore, the applicant 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.

¶15

5. However 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.

¶16

6. 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 accusedapplicant, 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.

¶17

7. 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-

¶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

8. In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶22

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

¶23

On the above premise, the learned counsel for applicant contends that the case of the present applicant is similar and identical to that of co-accused Pappu Rajput. There is no such distinguishing feature on the basis of which, the case of present applicant could be distinguished from co-accused Pappu Rajput so as to deny him bail. He, therefore, contends that in view of above and for the facts and reasons recorded in the order dated 31.05.2023, present applicant is also liable to be enlarged on bail.

¶24

Even otherwise, applicant is a man of clean antecedents inasmuch as he has no criminal history to his credit except the present one. Applicant is in jail since 23.04.2023. As such, he has undergone more than 1 and 1/2 month of incarceration. In case, applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial. It is thus urged that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail.

¶25

Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. However, he could not dislodge the fact that the co-accused who has earlier statute is already been enlarged on bail.

¶26

Having heard, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, upon perusal of record, evidence, complicity of applicant, accusations made coupled with the fact that co-accused Pappu Rajput has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 31.05.2023, there being no distinguishing feature in case of present applicant with co-accused Pappu Rajput so as to deny him bail, the clean antencedents of applicant, but without making any comments on the merits of the case, applicant has made out a case for bail.

¶27

Accordingly, the bail application is Allowed .

¶28

Let the applicant-Lavlesh Singh, be released on bail in aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two

¶29

heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶30

(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE/SHE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE 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.

¶31

(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.

¶32

(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.

¶33

(iv) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) 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 THE HIM/HER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶34

(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT.

¶35

However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his bail so granted by this Court and the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above.

¶36

Order Date :- 12.6.2023 Vinay

¶37

Digitally signed by :- VINAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Lavlesh Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lavlesh Singh 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

Indraveer Singh and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Lal Mohammad vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sri Karunesh Sharma vs State of U.P.

Krishna Kumar Pal @ Kabutar Vs State of U.P.

Rajendra Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Indal Prasad Maurya and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another