An accused is entitled to bail under Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 if there is prima facie non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the Act.

Court No. - 78

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 46319 of 2022

Applicant :- Kartik Patnayak @ Barandi

Opposite Party :- State of U.P.

Counsel for Applicant :- Shashank Shekhar,Sheo Ram Singh

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the

State and perused the record.

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the

applicant Kartik Patnayak @ Barandi with a prayer to release

him on bail in Case Crime No.465 of 2022, under Section 21/22

N.D.P.S. Act, P.S. Vrindaban, District Mathura during pendency

of the trial.

It is alleged in the FIR that on the information by informer,

police party recovered 184 gram alprazolam powder from the

possession of applicant. It is next argued that the applicant is

innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case.

Mandatory provisions of N.D.P.S. Act have not been complied

with while arresting the applicant. There is no independent

witness of the alleged recovery. Recovery is false and planted.

Till today there is no FSL report regarding alleged contraband

substance. Applicant has no criminal history. The applicant is

languishing in jail since 09.09.2022. In case, the applicant is

enlarged on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail and

cooperate in trial. At the stage of consideration of bail it cannot

be decided whether offer given to the applicant and his consent

obtained was voluntary. These are the questions of fact which

can be determined only during trial and not at the present stage.

In case of prima facie non-compliance of mandatory provision

of Section 50 the accused is entitled to be released on bail

within the meaning of Section 37 of N.D.P.S. Act.

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant.

The Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. Shiv

Shankar Keshari (2007) 7 SCC 798 has held that the court

while considering the application for bail with reference to

Section 37 of the Act is not called upon to record a finding of

not guilty. It is for the limited purpose essentially confined to

the question of releasing the accused on bail that the court is

called upon to see if there are reasonable grounds for believing

that the accused is not guilty and records its satisfaction about

the existence of such grounds. But the court has not to consider

the matter as if it is pronouncing a judgment of acquittal and

recording a finding of not guilty.

Considering the facts of the case and keeping in mind, the ratio

of the Apex Court's judgment in the case of Union of India vs.

Shiv Shankar Keshari (2007) 7 SCC 798, larger mandate of

Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the nature of

accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the

severity of punishment which conviction will entail, the

character of the accused-applicant, circumstances which are

peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the

presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of

the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interest of the

public/State and other circumstances, but without expressing

any opinion on the merits, I am of the view that it is a fit case

for grant of bail.

Let the applicant Kartik Patnayak @ Barandi, who is

involved in 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 subject to

following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order,

the sureties be verified.

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten

the witnesses.

(ii) 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.

(iii)