Allowed

Ved Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC10 Oct 2023BAIL/46734/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal bail application was heard under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for an applicant charged under the NDPS Act. The court observed a delay in trial exceeding four and a half years with only one witness examined. Relieving on Rabi Prakash, the court held that prolonged incarceration violated Article 21, allowing bail despite the statutory embargo of Section 37.

What did the court decide?

The applicant Ved Singh released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in like amounts, subject to standard conditions against tampering and pressuring witnesses.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:196629

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 46734 of 2020

¶4

Applicant :- Ved Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Prakhar Tandon,Arjun Singh Solanki,Rajrshi Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ashish Pandey

¶5

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶6

Heard counsel for the applicant, Sri Vipul Pandey, Advocate holding brief of Sri Ashish Pandey, counsel for the opposite party no. 2/ Narcotics Control Bureau and learned A.G.A. for the Stateopposite party.

¶7

The instant bail application, under Section 439 Cr.P.C., has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 09 of 2019, under Sections 8C/20/27A/28/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, Police Station- Khaga, District- Fatehpur during the pendency of trial.

¶8

From the documents on record, it appears that on 13.03.2019, a search was carried out based upon the information received from the S.T.F., Lucknow that huge quantity of Ganja is being transported in Truck No. RJ05GB3099. The search memo, which is on record, indicates that on receiving the said information, the team of Narcotics Control Bureau reached Katoghan Toll Plaza. The team of S.T.F., Lucknow was already present at the said location. The memo also records that at 7:45 PM, the truck bearing registration no. RJ05GB3099, after crossing the toll plaza, was stopped. The truck was being driven by the applicant and another person was sitting at the helpers seat. The memo also records that N.C.B. Team duly informed the accused of their rights under Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act. The applicant and the other persons wanted the search to be carried out in the presence of Gazetted Officer. In presence of Gazetted Officer both the persons were searched in person and nothing was found with them. However, when the truck was put on search, seventeen bags of Ganja were recovered. The search memo further records that from seventeen bags, two samples were taken.

¶9

Counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case and is in jail since 14.03.2019. The applicant is a law abiding citizen and has always cooperated with the investigation, and has attended the trial. The

¶10

trial is moving at snail's pace and shows no sign of early conclusion. The applicant cannot be faulted for the delay in conclusion of trial. In the present case, the prosecution proposes to examine eight witnesses to bring home the charges. As per the status report sent by the trial court dated 03.01.2023, charges were framed against the applicant on 16.02.2021. Till date only one prosecution witness has been examined. Inordinate delay in concluding the trial has led to indefinite imprisonment of the applicant. The applicant does not have any criminal history. In case, he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶11

Counsel for the applicant has further placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No(s). 4169/2023 ( Rabi Prakash vs. State of Odisha ), in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows;

¶12

"2. The prosecution case appears to be that the police party while on patrolling duty on 02.10.2019 at about 12.30 p.m. on Nandapur-Semiliguda road MDR-55, spotted one full body twelve wheeler Truck (Eicher) bearing No.EB-13-BD-5753 coming from Nandapur side at a high speed and accordingly they chased and detained the truck at Bodenga Chhak and found three persons boarded in the said truck including the driver. Eventually, 247 kg. Ganja was recovered from the truck. The petitioner was one of the occupants of the truck and was arrested at the spot. He has been in custody for more than three and a half years. There are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner.

¶13

3. We are informed that the trial has commenced but only 1 out of the 19 witnesses has been examined. The conclusion of trial will, thus, take some more time.

¶14

4. As regard to the twin conditions contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act, learned counsel for the respondent – State has been duly heard. Thus, the 1st condition stands complied with. So far as the 2nd condition re: formation of opinion as to whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is not guilty, the same may not be formed at this stage when he has already spent more than three and a half years in custody. The prolonged incarceration, generally militates against the most precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and in such a situation, the conditional liberty must override the statutory embargo created under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act."

¶15

Learned A.G.A. and counsel for the opposite party no. 2 have opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶16

Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, I am of the prima facie view that no doubt, the quantity of

¶17

recovered contraband would fall in the 'commercial quantity' and the provision of Section 37 of the NDPS Act would be attracted in the present case. However, it is also borne out from the record that the applicant is in jail for more than four years and six months and out of eight prosecution witnesses only one has been examined so far. Even the prosecution could not bring on record any material, which would show that the trial has been delayed on account of any fault on the part of the present applicant. Thus, the 'right of speedy trial' of the applicant as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is violated and the conditions as mentioned in Section 37 of the NDPS Act can be dispensed with at this stage for the limited purpose of grant of concession of bail.

¶18

Consequently, keeping in view the above stated facts and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in [Rabi Prakash vs. State of Odisha (supra)] , more so when no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the evidence or delay the trial or intimidate the witness, without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶19

Let the applicant Ved Singh, involved in the aforesaid 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 the conditions that he:

¶20

(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;

¶21

(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

¶22

(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.

¶23

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶24

Order Date :- 10.10.2023 Sachin Mishra

¶25

Digitally signed by :- SACHIN MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ved Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ved Singh v. State of U.P. 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

Dharmraj Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Dilawar Vs State of U.P.

Mohd. Jeeshan Vs State of U.P.

State of U.P. Vs Rashid

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

Ram Kumar Shukla Vs State of U.P. and Another