Allowed

Charan Yadav @ Guddu Kumar v. Union of India Thru. Director General Directorate Revenue Intelligence New Delhi

Allahabad HC22 Mar 2024/1523/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application under Sections 8/20/29 NDPS Act based on a co-accused's confessional statement recorded nine months after the incident. The Investigating Officer's cross-examination was found casual; no prior antecedents shown. Court held Section 37 conditions satisfied and granted bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions regarding trial attendance and non-tampering.

Charan Yadav @ Guddu Kumar Vs Union of India Thru… — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:25817

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1523 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Charan Yadav @ Guddu Kumar Opposite Party :- Union Of India Thru. Director General Directorate Revenue Intelligence New Delhi Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Tirpathi,Surekha Patel

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- Digvijay Nath Dubey

¶6

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶7

On 07.03.2024, it was expected from Shri Digvijay Nath Dubey, to file questionnaire related to the status of trial but the same has not been filed.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as Shri Digvijay Nath Dubey, Special Counsel for D.R.I and perused the record.

¶9

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in DRI Case No.8 of 2021 under Sections 8/20/29 of NDPS Act., Police Station D.R.I., District Lucknow with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the present case on the basis of confessional statement of coaccused Chandan Kumar Rai, which was recorded after a period of 9 months from the date of alleged incident and in his statement, he stated that the applicant gave him assistance in loading the contraband in the truck in question. Except this, there is no evidence against the applicant and the applicant was taken into custody after a period of nine 9 months. He further submitted that the applicant and his father are daily wages workers and they are being engaged by different persons for different work and they also perform agricultural work as well as loading and unloading work. He further submitted that after framing of charges, Shri Kamlesh Kumar, Investigating Officer/Intelligence Officer for D.R.I was cross-examined before the trial Court on 17.01.2024 and in his crossexamination, he stated that he is not aware as to who has given information about the alleged contraband and he could also not explain the colour of the vehicle in question. He was also not in a position to state that at the time of contraband recovery, who

¶11

were taken into custody. He further submitted that there is no evidence against the applicant which constitutes the alleged offences, as the hearing of the case was already concluded on 11.03.2024. Thereafter, the matter was listed by the trial court for delivery of judgment on 15.03.24 and again, it was deferred for 21.03.24. Now, it is fixed for delivery of judgment on 01.04.2024.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant drew attention of this Court on the statement of witnesses recorded before the trial Court and submitted that there is no evidence against the applicant and he is in jail since 28.06.2022, therefore, the applicant is also entitled for bail. In case of being enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶13

Mr. Digvijay Nath Dubey, Special Counsel for D.R.I submitted that during the course of investigation, statements of other co-accused persons, namely, Chandan Kumar Rai, Abhishek Rai, Vijay Shankar Singh, Rajendra Shah, Khattu Kumar and Kundan Kumar were taken into consideration and in their statement, the involvement of applicant was surfaced, but he did not dispute on the statement of Investigating Officer as discussed above.

¶14

Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for parties, material available on record, contents of the F.I.R., recovery of memo, deposition of co-accused Chandan Kumar Rai, in which, he stated that applicant assisted him in loading the article in the truck, the deposition of the Investigating Officer, in which, he stated that he was not aware as to who were arrested at the time of recovery of the alleged contraband. As the deposition of the Investigating Officer is of most casual manner. As the provisions of Section 37 of N.D.P.S Act are satisfied with two reasons as sufficient opportunity is given to the Special Counsel for D.R.I and there is no previous criminal antecedents of applicant on record, thus, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶15

Let applicant - Charan Yadav @ Guddu Kumar - be released on bail in aforesaid Case Crime, on his furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶16

(i) The applicant shall not commit or participate in any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶17

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any

¶18

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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶19

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he 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.

¶20

(iv) 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 IPC.

¶21

(v) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his 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, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A IPC.

¶22

(vi) 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 him in accordance with law.

¶23

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

¶24

Order Date :- 22.3.2024 V. Sinha

¶25

Digitally signed by :- VAISHALI SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Charan Yadav @ Guddu Kumar v. Union of India Thru. Director General Directorate Revenue Intelligence New Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Charan Yadav @ Guddu Kumar v. Union of India Thru. Director General Directorate Revenue Intelligence New Delhi

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Virendra Kumar and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another

Vijay Kumar vs Rajiv Kumar Srivastava, Unit Head (Addl. General Manager) Iti Ltd., Raebareli

Usha Devi vs Shri Anand Prakash Rai, Nayab Tehsildar Tehsil-Milkipur, Ayodhya

Anil Kumar Gupta and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Shakeel Khan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Manjeet vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.