Allowed

Rajveer v. Union Of India

Allahabad HC3 Feb 2023BAIL/54336/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court allowed bail to the applicant in a Special Criminal Case involving possession of 2kg opium. The court noted the quantity was below the commercial limit making Section 37 inapplicable. Directorates court granted bail to co-accused, suggesting parity.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount with consent of the court concerned.

Rajveer Vs Union Of India — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 84 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 54336 of 2022 Applicant :- Rajveer Opposite Party :- Union of India Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- Ashish Pandey

¶2

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶3

Heard Sri Mohd.Waseem, Advocate holding brief of Sri Rajesh Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ashish Pandey, learned counsel for the NCB and Sri Tanay Kumar, learned AGA, for the State.

¶4

The instant bail application has been moved on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail in Session Case (Special Criminal Case) No.1119 of 2021 arising out of NCB Lucknow Case No.12 of 2021, under Section 8(C)/18/29 of NDPS Act, Police Station NCB, District Kanpur Nagar during pendency of the trial.

¶5

According to the prosecution version applicant along with coaccused Rishipal was apprehended by the officers of NCB and from their possession 2kg each opium was recovered.

¶6

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the entire allegations made against the applicant are totally false and baseless and in fact no contraband was recovered from the possession of applicant. He further submitted that at the time of recovery although mandatory provisions of Section 50 NDPS Act have not been complied but only with intention to show its compliance it is mentioned in the recovery memo that applicant was apprised about his right that if he wants then his search may be taken either before the Magistrate or before the Gazetted Officer and when he opted for search before the Gazetted Officer then in the presence of Circle Officer his search was taken.

¶7

He further submitted that he never opted for search before the Circle Officer, who is a Police Officer, therefore, this fact clearly suggests that only to show the compliance of Section 50 NDPS Act, this fact has been mentioned in the recovery memo. He further submitted that along with applicant co-accused Rishipal was apprehended and from his possession also 2kg Opium was recovered and he has been released on bail vide order dated 14.12.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 34371 of 2022 and the case of applicant is at par with co-accused Rishipal.

¶8

He next submitted that applicant is not having any criminal history and, therefore, it cannot be said that after release he will again commit such offence and in the present matter he is in jail since 5.3.2021, i.e., for the last more than one year and six months.

¶9

Per contra, learned AGA and the learned counsel for the NCB opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that from the possession of the applicant 2kg opium was recovered and at the time of recovery provisions of Section 50 NDPS Act have duly been complied with and this fact itself evident from the recovery memo.

¶10

Learned counsel for the NCB could not dispute the fact that coaccused Rishipal has been released on bail and the case of applicant is also at par with co-accused Rishipal and applicant is not having any criminal antecedents to his credit except the present case.

¶11

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶12

According to the prosecution, from the possession of applicant and co-accused Rishipal 2kg each opium was recovered which is not the commercial quantity as notified quantity is 2-1/2kg

¶13

opium and, therefore, it appears that rigor of Section 37 NDPS Act is not applicable in the present matter.

¶14

Further, co-accused Rishipal, who was also arrested along with the applicant and from his possession also 2kg opium was recovered, has been released on bail by this Court vide order dated 14.12.2022 passed in Criminal Misc.Bail Application No. 34371 of 2022 and the case of the applicant is also at par with co-accused Rishipal and further he is not having any criminal antecedents except the present one and he is in jail since 5.3.2021, i.e., for the ast more than one and half years, therefore, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶15

In the light of discussions made above, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

¶16

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

¶17

(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted.

¶18

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

¶19

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and antisocial activity.

¶20

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for

¶21

cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

¶22

Order Date :- 3.2.2023/SKM

¶23

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

Rajveer v. Union Of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajveer v. Union Of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anil Vs State of U.P.

Sujeet Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Shivam Soni Vs State of U.P.

Fatehyab Chaudhary Vs State of U.P.

Gaurav Alias Gaura Vs State of U.P.

Sonu Yadav Vs State of U.P.