Kanhaiya Verma Vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:123851

Court No. - 86

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5215 of 2023

Applicant :- Kanhaiya Verma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Patel Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Patel, learned counsel for applicant and Sri Mithilesh Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

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 false and planted recovery of three kilograms of charas has been recovered from the possession of the applicant and there is no public witness of the alleged recovery. 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 non-compliance 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 applicant has criminal history, which has been explained in paragraph no.30 of the affidavit accompanying this bail application. It is also submitted that the applicant is in jail since 13.11.2022 and he undertakes that he will not misuse liberty, if granted.

¶8

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.

¶9

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.

¶10

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.

¶11

Let the applicant Kanhaiya Verma involved in Case Crime No.998 of 2022, under Section 8/22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, Police Station Auraiya, District Auraiya be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following condition:-

¶12

(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;

¶13

(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.

¶14

(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.

¶15

Order Date :- 26.5.2023 Dev/-

¶16

Digitally signed by :- DEV PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Kanhaiya Verma v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanhaiya Verma v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Golu@ Gautam Vs State of U.P.

Vishnu Sardar Vs State of U.P.

Noorul Hasan Vs State of U.P.

Anirudh Prasad Vs State of U.P. thr.its Sec. Home U.P.

Shyam Singh Vs State of U.P.

Sumit Rathaur Vs State of U.P.