Ravi Chauhan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:43457

Court No. - 14

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12698 of 2024

Applicant :- Ravi Chauhan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

1.Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.

¶7

2. Prosecution story is that on the basis of secret information given by informer, two persons riding on a motorcycle were apprehended by police party and upon their search and pointing out, total 101.2kg of Ganja in three bags has been allegedly recovered.

¶8

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that it is not clear from the recovery memo as to out of the two, from which accused the alleged 101.2kg ganja was recovered. It is submitted that although the search is said to have taken place in the presence of Circle Officer, however, the recovery memo does not bear signature of said officer. He is not even a witness of charge sheet. It is further submitted that another recovery is shown which is 20km away from the place of first search, that too from open place.

¶9

There is non-compliance of Section 40 of NDPS Act. The sampling has not been done in the presence of Magistrate, The applicant has explained criminal history in para 8 of the rejoinder affidavit and in all those cases, the applicant has been granted bail.

¶10

The applicant e is in jail since 5.11.2024.

¶11

It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released on bail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶12

4. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant. He submits that the recovery of alleged contraband is of commercial quantity and the applicant is not liable to be enlarged on bail.

¶13

5. Having regard to all the facts and circumstances, charge sheet has been filed, provisions of section 42 NDPS Act, manner in which sampling has been done, fact that the Circle Officer is not signatory of the recovery memo nor a witness in the prosecution case, the applicant is not a previous convict, as also considering twin conditions as mentioned in section 37(1)(b) of N.D.P.S. Act having prima facie been satisfied, in as much as there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused applicant might not be guilty of the offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail, the judgment in Vimal Rajput versus State of U.P. 2024 SCC OnLine All 4620 (relevant para 38), and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail and accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶14

6. Let the applicant Ravi Chauhan, involved in Case Crime No. 832 of 2024 under Sections 8/20 N.D.P.S. Act, P.S.Kotwali Nagar, district Gonda, 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 which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶15

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶16

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶17

(iii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any 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.

¶18

(iv) 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. 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.

¶19

(v) 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 I.P.C. (now 269 BNS)

¶20

(vi) 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. (now 84 BNSS) is issued and the applicant fails to

¶21

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 I.P.C. (now 209 BNS)

¶22

Order Date :- 28.7.2025 kkb/

¶23

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

Ravi Chauhan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi Chauhan 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

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

Ajay Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 2 Others

Himanshu Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Harikesh Pandey @ Harikesh Kumar Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko

Raj Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Jagdish Mahawat Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.