Ram Kumar Singh @ Rajwal Vs the State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:28059

Court No. - 13

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4045 of 2025

Applicant :- Ram Kumar Singh @ Rajwal Opposite Party :- The State Of U.P. Thru. The Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Upendra Prakash Pathak,Akanksha,Dhananjay Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶7

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

¶8

This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No. 352 of 2024 under Section 8/22 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, P.S. Mohanganj, District Amethi.

¶9

As per contents of FIR, the incident is said to have taken place on 26.12.2024, a police team is said to have apprehended the applicant during routine checking and recovered 45 grams of smack from applicant.

¶10

It is submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in allegations levelled against him and alleges serious violation of Sections 42, 50 and 52-A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act inasmuch as no sampling has been done at the presence of either a Magistrate or any Gazetted Officer. It is submitted that the aforesaid narcotics has in fact been planted upon applicant. It is also submitted that applicant is under incarceration since 27.12.2024 with previous criminal history being explained.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State has opposed bail application with the submission that recovery from applicant of illegal narcotics was clearly videographed as indicated in the FIR and therefore there is substantive compliance of provisions of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. It is, however, admitted that previous criminal history of thirty two cases has been explained but without bail

¶12

orders of all cases being brought on record.

¶13

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 :-

¶14

"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."

¶15

"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."

¶16

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 said to have been apprehended with illegal narcotics which are below commercial limit during routine checking by the police. The aspect of violation of provisions of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act would require consideration. The applicant is under incarceration since 27.12.2024 with previous criminal history of applicant being explained.

¶17

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.

¶18

Let applicant, Ram Kumar Singh @ Rajwal , 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:-

¶19

(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

¶20

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.

¶21

(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 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶22

(iii) 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, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶23

(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 313 Cr.P.C. 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.

¶24

Order Date :- 14.5.2025 Satish

¶25

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

Ram Kumar Singh @ Rajwal v. the State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Kumar Singh @ Rajwal v. the State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Deptt. of 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

Reena Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Manish Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Mohammad Gofran @ Gufran Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko.

Aftab Ahmad and 2 Others Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Mukesh Giri Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko.

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