Rajendra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:82132

Court No. - 15

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6086 of 2024

Applicant :- Rajendra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Smriti Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 42 of 2024, under Section 8/21 of NDPS Act, Police Station Sandi, District Hardoi.

¶8

Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated due to ulterior motive. She submits that as per the prosecution story, 600 contraband substance i.e. Alprasafe of 120 gram quantity, which is above than the commercial quantity, is said to be recovered but there is no independent public eye witness of the same. She next submits that the police being inimical has shown the aforesaid recovery from the applicant, though there is no cogent piece of evidence collected against him. She added that chargesheet has been filed, as such there is no possibility that the applicant would tamper the evidences or threaten the witnesses. She also added that the applicant is a law abiding citizen and he languishing in jail since 01.02.2024 and the criminal history has been explained in Paragraph 25 of the bail application. She added that the applicant undertakes that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings. Thus, submission is that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶9

Per contra, learned AGA appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that the contraband, which is recovered, is above than the commercial quantity and no proper ground is disclosed for bail. He next added that the applicant has criminal history of four cases, thus, submission is that the applicant is not entitled for any relief.

¶10

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of record, it transpires that the applicant is languishing in jail since 01.02.2024; four cases criminal history has been explained; prima facie, there seems no cogent piece of evidence of

¶11

recovery and the learned counsel for the applicant has shown other falsity in the prosecution story, coupled with the fact that the applicant has undertaken that he will not misuse the liberty of bail, if granted and he will always cooperate with the trial proceedings.

¶12

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case of bail.

¶13

Let the applicant- Rajendra involved in the aforementioned 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, with the following conditions:-

¶14

(1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial;

¶15

(2) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. He 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;

¶16

(3) 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.; and

¶17

(4) 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. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶18

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶19

It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case.

¶20

Order Date :- 9.12.2024 kkv/

¶21

Digitally signed by :- KRISHAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rajendra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Satish Chandra @ Chhotey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Ram Khilawan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Guddu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Beeran Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Suresh Chandra vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and 2 Others

Raghvendra Pratap Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.