Allowed

Sushil Kumar Goswami v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Allahabad HC3 Dec 2024BAIL/9102/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted bail to the applicant in a trial under Section 8/20 NDPS Act for possession of Ganja. The court held the recovery violated the 2022 Seizure Rules due to improper sampling and lack of an independent eye-witness. Granting bail was based on Article 21, lack of prior record, bail of co-accused, and the applicant's undertaking not to misuse liberty.

What did the court decide?

Order of release of applicant on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties, subject to four specific conditions regarding presence in court and non-tampering.

Sushil Kumar Goswami Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:80479

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9102 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Sushil Kumar Goswami Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Niyaj Ahmad,Shiv Kumar Yadav,Vishwa Nath Singh

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶7

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

¶8

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. 280 of 2024, under Section 8/20 of NDPS Act, Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Bahraich.

¶9

Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that as per the prosecution story, 41.602 kg. contraband substance i.e 'Ganja' is said to have been recovered from the possession of the applicant, though there is no independent public eye witness of the recovery. He also submits that out of 28 packets of the contraband substance, only 4 samples were taken which vitiates the whole recovery proceeding as the same is in contravention of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules 2022') and, therefore, this matter will not lead to punishment as the whole proceeding with respect to sampling vitiates in the eyes of law. He also submits that identically situated co-accused persons, namely, Amit Goswami and Rohit Goswami have already been enlarged on bail vide order of this Court dated 25.11.2024 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 8791 of 2024. He also submits that the applicant has no previous criminal history and he is a law abiding citizen and languishing in jail since 03.06.2024. He next added that the applicant undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty of bail, if granted and would cooperate in the trial proceedings. Thus, submission is that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶10

Per contra, learned counsel for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that subsequently samples were taken and it was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory but does not dispute the fact that initially only four samples were taken from 28 packets. He also added that enquiry has

¶11

been initiated against the erring officers and report shall be submitted within two weeks.

¶12

Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires that the recovery proceeding is not in consonance with the provisions of Rules, 2022; there is also no any independent public eye witness of the recovery; the applicant is languishing in jail since 03.06.2024; identically situated co-accused persons have already been enlarged on bail; there is no previous criminal history of the applicant, coupled with the fact that the applicant has undertaken that if he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶13

Considering the submissions of learned counsels 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.

¶14

Let the applicant- Sushil Kumar Goswami , involved in the aforementioned case crime number, be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bonds and two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:-

¶15

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

¶16

(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;

¶17

(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

¶18

(4) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section

¶19

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.

¶20

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.

¶21

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.

¶22

Order Date :- 3.12.2024 kkv/

¶23

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

Sushil Kumar Goswami v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sushil Kumar Goswami v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

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

Sachin Jaisawal vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Phool Chandra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 7 Others

Mohammad Firoj Khan vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Ubaid Ulla @ Mohd. Ubaid Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Neeraj Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Neeraj Kumar Gupta vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.