Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 277 (ALL)

Rajesh Rauniyar v. State of U. P.

2024-01-25

KRISHAN PAHAL

body2024
JUDGMENT : 1. List has been revised. Heard Sri Dinesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Anit Kumar Shukla, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 2. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 81 of 2023, U/S 8/22/23 of The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station-Thuthibari, District -Maharajganj, during the pendency of trial. 3. As per the allegations of the FIR, 400 ampules of 2 ml each of buprenorphine injection and 440 ampules of 2 ml each of diazepam injection were recovered from the possession of the applicant, which was being carried in his bag on 23.4.2023. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case out of local political rivalry. Learned counsel has stated that even no sample has been sent for testing at the FSL to indicate that the said contraband falls within the category of psychotropic substances. It is next stated that the applicant is ready to co-operate in the trial. 5. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is languishing in jail since 23.4.2023, having no criminal antecedents. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 6. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application. However, he has not disputed the fact that the applicant has no criminal antecedents. 7. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusal of record and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment as well as totality of facts and circumstances, at this stage without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail. 8. Let the applicant-Rajesh Rauniyar, who is involved in aforesaid case crime number 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. 8. Let the applicant-Rajesh Rauniyar, who is involved in aforesaid case crime number 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. (i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence. (ii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) 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. 9. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 10. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.