Allahabad High Court
Vijay Sahani @ Lallu vs State Of U.P. on 7 February, 2020
Author: Rajiv Joshi
Bench: Rajiv Joshi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 54 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5944 of 2020 Applicant :- Vijay Sahani @ Lallu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Saurabh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
This bail application has been filed to release the applicant on bail in Special Sessions Trial No.148 of 2013, arising out of case crime no. 388 of 2013, under Section 8/20 of the N.D.P.S. Act, P.S. Chopan, District Sonbhadra.
The allegation in the FIR against the applicant is that he was found in possession of about 2.4 Kg. of Ganja.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the amount allegedly recovered from the applicant is well below the commercial quantity of 20 Kilogram and the prosecution case is totally false and concocted one. It is further stated that neither any recovery has been made from the applicant nor any independent witness is there. There is violation of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. Criminal history of two cases has been explained in para No.11 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application.
Learned A.G.A. has strongly opposed the bail but could not dispute that the amount of Ganja recovered from the applicant is below the commercial quantity. The applicant is in jail since 15.11.2019.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is a fit case for bail. This bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant-Vijay Sahani alias Lallu be released on bail in Special Sessions Trial No.148 of 2013, arising out of case crime no. 388 of 2013, under Section 8/20 of the N.D.P.S. Act, P.S. Chopan, District Sonbhadra, on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties each of the same amount before the court below with the following additional conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice :-
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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
It is clarified that the observations, if any, 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 ultimate merits of the case.
Order Date :- 7.2.2020 T. Sinha