Allowed

Rakesh Pathak v. the State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Allahabad HC17 Apr 2025BAIL/3188/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

First bail application under BNS, Indian Forest Act and Wildlife Protection Act offences relating to recovery of forest produce from seized vehicles. Applicant not named in FIR and implicated only via call details, with no criminal history. Bail granted subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on personal bond and two sureties with conditions.

Rakesh Pathak Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy… — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:21537

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3188 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Rakesh Pathak Opposite Party :- The State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashish Raman Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and perused the record.

¶7

This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.25 of 2025 under Sections 303(2), 317(2), 316(5), 61(2) BNS, under Sections 26, 41,42, 52 Indian Forest Act & Section 27, 29, 31, 51 Wildlife Protection Act, P.S. Tulsipur, District Balrampur.

¶8

As per contents of First Information Report, the incident is said to have taken place on 28.01.2025 at about 04:00 AM, when an SSB team alongwith staff intercepted one pickup and one Scorpio and recovered forest produce including wood from the seized vehicle.

¶9

It has been submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him, which would be evident from the fact that he is neither named in the FIR nor is he shown being apprehended from the spot. It is submitted that applicant has been taken into custody only on the basis of call details. Since he was conversing with one Anoop Kumar Shukla who is in fact a Police informant and has also been enlarged on bail by this Court in Bail Application No. 2918 of 2025. It is submitted that applicant's case is on a better footing than that of Anoop Kumar Shukla since the applicant is a ranger and has been apprehended only on the basis of said call records.

¶10

Learned AGA appearing on behalf of State has opposed the first bail application with the submission that applicant has been taken into custody on the basis of call details having had conversation with said Anoop Kumar Shukla. It is, however, admitted that applicant does not have any previous criminal history.

¶11

Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation , reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 has specifically held that bail is to be a norm and an under-trial is not required to be in jail for ever pending trial. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment are as under :-

¶12

"21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty."

¶13

"27. This Court, time and again, has stated that bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. It has also observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution."

¶14

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties, prima facie, subject to evidence being led in trial, at this stage it appears that applicant is not named in the FIR nor is there any allegation against him of having participated in the crime of which others are accused of. He appears to have been taken into custody only on the basis of call details having had a conversation with one of the accused. The applicant admittedly does not have previous criminal history and is under incarceration since 07.02.2025.

¶15

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.

¶16

Let applicant, Rakesh Pathak , involved in the aforesaid case 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 which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶17

(i) 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.

¶18

(ii) 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 269 BNS.

¶19

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 84 BNSS is issued and the 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 209 BNS.

¶20

(iv) 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 351 BNSS. 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.

¶21

Order Date :- 17.4.2025 Satish

¶22

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

Rakesh Pathak v. the State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh Pathak v. the State of U.P. Thru. Its 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Harjeet Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Arpit Srivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Sharukh Mansuri Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Widow Usha Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Sheru @ Arman Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Shiva Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another