Amar Bahadur @ Bablu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:27047

Court No. - 13

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4002 of 2025

Applicant :- Amar Bahadur @ Bablu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Sachin Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶7

This First Bail Application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.153 of 2024, under sections 8/20/29 N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station- Unchahar, DistrictRaebareli.

¶8

Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant matter due to ulterior motive. He submits that as per the recovery memo, 885 packets in total 28 sacks of 'ganja' weighing 879.350 kg are said to be recovered from one Dinesh Singh, which is above the commercial quantity, but there is no public eyewitness of the alleged recovery. He added that the samples were not taken as per the procedure prescribed under the Rules 9 and 10 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022 and also the same were not taken from each and every packets and as such, the matter will not lead to punishment. He further submits that charge-sheet has been filed and as such, there is no possibility that the applicant would tamper with the evidences or would threaten the witnesses. He also submits that the applicant has one case of previous criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 20.03.2025. Further submitted 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. He further submits that main recovery has been alleged from one Dinesh Singh who has already been enlarged on bail by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.6909 of 2024 on 17.12.2024.

¶9

Per contra, learned AGA appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that huge quantity of 'ganja' has been recovered from the possession of the applicant and as such, he is not entitled for bail, but he could not dispute the fact that the samples were not taken from all the packets.

¶10

Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires that the applicant is languishing in jail since 08.04.2024; there is no independent public eyewitness of the alleged recovery; the samples were not taken from each and every packets and as such, there appears to be violation of Rules 9 and 10 of the Rules, 2022;charge-sheet has been filed and as such, there is no possibility that the applicant would tamper with the evidences or would threaten the witnesses; there is one case of 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. He further submits that main recovery has been alleged from one Dinesh Singh who has already been enlarged on bail by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.6909 of 2024 on 17.12.2024. Applicant has been taken into custody on account of alleged confessional statement of said Dinesh Singh.

¶11

Considering the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, 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.

¶12

Let the applicant- Amar Bahadur @ Bablu 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:-

¶13

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

¶14

(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

¶15

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 :- 8.5.2025 prabhat

¶21

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

Amar Bahadur @ Bablu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amar Bahadur @ Bablu 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

Sumit Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Pankaj Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

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

Swadesh Tripathi @ Gagan Tripathi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Kailash Nath Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Shoeb @ Roofi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.