The mandatory nature of the conditions for granting bail under Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act and the significance of recording reasons for granting or refusing bail.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Kumar Singh, J.

1. This is second bail application moved on behalf of the applicant. The first bail application of the applicant has been rejected by detailed order dated 06.07.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 42092 of 2020.

2. By means of this second bail application, the applicant-Dheeraj Kumar Shukla, who is involved in Case Crime No. 0325 of 2020, under Sections 8/20 of Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as “N.D.P.S. Act”), police station Jhunsi, district Prayagraj, is seeking enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial.

3. Heard Mr. Chandra Shekhar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Virendra Kumar Maurya, learned Additional Government Advocate assisted by Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh, learned Brief holder appearing on behalf of State of U.P. and perused the record.

4. In short compass, the facts of the case as per prosecution case are that on the information of informer, two vehicles white coloured Swift Dzire car and grey coloured Honda City car were intercepted on 23.06.2020 by the police team using necessary force and persons sitting in the vehicles were pulled out. On questioning, they disclosed about transportation of illegal Ganja in the said vehicles. On interrogation at the spot, the apprehended accused persons, who were sitting in Honda City car, disclosed their names as Praveen Maurya alias Punit Maurya (owner), Rishabh Kumar (Driver) and Dhiraj Maurya, whereas person, who was driving Swift Dzire car disclosed his name as Dheeraj Kumar Shukla (applicant). The accused were enlightened about their legal rights to be searched before a Gazetted Officer, to which they declined and gave their consent saying that informant may take their search. Accordingly, they were searched, but no contraband was recovered from their personal search, except mobile phones and some cash amount etc. as mentioned in the recovery memo. On taking search of aforesaid vehicles, total 92.410 Kgs. of Ganja were recovered from the dicky of Honda City car bearing No. MH 04 AF 0076 and 65.160 Kgs. of Ganja were recovered from the dicky of Swift Dzire car bearing No. UP 70 EW 0246. As such, total 157.570 Kgs of illegal Ganja have been recovered in this case. Accused persons could not show the authorization for keeping and transporting the same. Separate samples of about 100-100 grams each of Ganja were taken out from each packets, thereafter samples and remaining Ganja as well as other recovered materials were separately sealed in white cloths. Specimens of seal were prepared. Accused persons disclosed that they have been engaged in the trafficking of Ganja since last several years. They also disclosed that they purchased the Ganja from one Hari, resident of Kodpad, Odisha and will sell the same on higher price in Prayagraj. Both the aforesaid vehicles were also seized. Contents of recovery memo were explained to the accused persons and after taking their signatures, copy of recovery memo was handed over to them. On the basis of aforesaid recovery, a case was registered against the accused persons at Case Crime No. 0325 of 2020, under section 8/20 of N.D.P.S. Act, police station Jhunsi, district Prayagraj.

5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that instant second bail application has been moved mainly on the following two new grounds:-

(i)-After rejection of first bail application of the applicant on 06.07.2020, co-accused Sonoo Shukla and Praveen Maurya @ Puneet Maurya have been granted bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 14.07.2021 and 14.09.2021 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 20323 of 2021 and 44698 of 2020 respectively, therefore, the applicant is also entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity.

(ii)-Applicant is in jail but trial is not proceeding effectively.

6. Per-contra, learned Additional Government Advocate vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that:-

(i) co