# Radhey Shyam Yadav v. State of U.P. Opp. Party - **Citation:** (2021) 6 ILRA 545 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2021-06-09 - **Case number:** Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 16755 of 2021 - **Bench:** Shamim Ahmed - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/radhey-shyam-yadav-v-state-of-u-p-opp-party-47127 - **Pages:** 3 ## Headnote Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code (2 of 1974) - Section 437 - Excise Act,1958 - Section 63 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 420 - Bail - Grant of - allegation that applicant, a truck driver, was illegally transporting whisky - contention of applicant that he showed all relevant papers to the police but they refused to entertain the same - mandatory provisions of Excise Act were not followed - prosecution case does not go beyond the purview of Excise Act - Bail, granted (Para 4, 7) Allowed. (E-4) List of Cases cited:- ## Text 6 All. Radhey Shyam Yadav Vs. State of U.P. 545 confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case. ---------- (2021)06ILR A545 APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.06.2021 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J. Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 16755 of 2021 Radhey Shyam Yadav ...Applicant Versus State of U.P. ...Opp. Party Counsel for the Applicant: Sri Ankit Agarwal, Sri Gyan Prakash Mishra Counsel for the Opp. Party: A.G.A. Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code (2 of 1974) - Section 437 - Excise Act,1958 - Section 63 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 420 - Bail - Grant of - allegation that applicant, a truck driver, was illegally transporting whisky - contention of applicant that he showed all relevant papers to the police but they refused to entertain the same - mandatory provisions of Excise Act were not followed - prosecution case does not go beyond the purview of Excise Act - Bail, granted (Para 4, 7) Allowed. (E-4) List of Cases cited:- 1. Dataram Singh Vs St. of U.P. & anr., (2018) 3 SCC 22 (Delivered by Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed, J.) 1. The Court has convened through Video Conferencing. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record. 3. This application has been filed seeking the release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.89 of 2021, under Section 420 I.P.C. and 63 of Excise Act, Police Station Gulaothi, District Bulandshahr. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that as per the prosecution case, on 4.2.2021 the applicant was carrying 1100 boxes of whisky having brand of 'Kims Gold Special Whisky' and each box contained 12 bottles and the said whisky was being illegally transported by the applicant to be delivered at M/s North East Liquors Bhalukkpong, District Kameng, Arunachal Pradesh and in that regard bill memo dated 22.2.2021 for 1200 boxes, issued by the High Field Distillers & Bottlers Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh bearing TIN/CST No.12020443191 for a total sum of Rs.4,98,000/- and also the relevant papers issued by the liquor Company are annexed as Annexure-3 to the affidavit filed in support of the bail application. All these papers were shown by the applicant, who is driver of the truck in question, to the police officers but they totally refused to entertain the same and without giving any valid reason, falsely implicated the applicant in the present case. He further submits that the applicant is only a driver of the alleged truck in question bearing No.UP50AT 0937 which is registered in the name of one Julmi Yadav and the applicant has no concern with the said 1100 boxes of whisky which were alleged to have been recovered, actually there were 1200 boxes of whisky but the police team has only shown 1100 boxes of whisky to be recovered and 100 boxes of whisky were 546 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES illegally removed by the police team. He next argued that the entire allegation made in the F.I.R. is based on ulterior motive and when the applicant did not fulfil the demand of illegal gratification of the police team, he has been falsely implicated in the present case. No offence whatsoever is made out against the applicant. The mandatory provisions of Excise Act were not followed by the informant. The offence does not cover beyond the offence of Excise Act. Thus, the prosecution case does not go beyond the purview of Excise Act. 5. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. It has also been pointed out that the accused is not having any criminal history and he is in jail since 25.2.2021 and that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial. 6. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail. 7. After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence, the period of detention already undergone, the unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence and larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh vs. State of UP and another, (2018) 3 SCC 22, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail. 8. The prayer for bail is granted. The application is allowed. 9. Let the applicant-Radhe Shyam Yadav involved in Case Crime No.89 of 2021, under Section 420 I.P.C. and 63 of Excise Act, Police Station Gulaothi, District Bulandshahr be released on bail on executing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned on the following conditions :- (1) The applicant will not make any attempt to tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever. (2) The applicant will personally appear on each and every date fixed in the court below and his personal presence shall not be exempted unless the court itself deems it fit to do so in the interest of justice. (3) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment. (4)The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail. (5) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad or certified copy issued from the Registry of the High Court, Allahabad. (6) The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of 6 All. Ram Prakash Vs. State of U.P. 547 the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing 10. It may be observed that in the event of any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to proceed for the cancellation of applicant's bail. 11. It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case. ---------- (2021)06ILR A547 APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.06.2021 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J. Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 16768 of 2021 Ram Prakash ...Applicant Versus State of U.P. ...Opp. Party Counsel for the Applicant: Sri Ram Surat Patel Counsel for the Opp. Party: A.G.A. Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code (2 of 1974) - Section 437 - Excise Act, 1958 - Section 60(2) - Indian Penal Code - Section 272 - Adulteration of food or drink intended for sale - Bail - Grant of -allegation that applicant was adultering urea in deshi liquor - applicant neither arrested from the alleged spot nor any illegal material recovered from the possession of the applicant - no offence under any Section of I.P.C. made out - offence does not cover beyond the offence of the Excise Act - offence u/s 60(2) Excise Act is triable by Magistrate - no criminal history of the applicant - Bail granted (Para 3, 4, 9) Allowed. (E-4) List of Cases cited:- 1. Dataram Singh Vs St. of U.P. & anr., (2018) 3 SCC 22 (Delivered by Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record. 2. Applicant has moved the present bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No. 142 of 2021, under Section 60(2) of U.P. Excise Act and Section 272 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali Orai, District Jalaun. 3. Learned counsel for applicant submits that a false and concocted F.I.R. has been lodged by the informant against the applicant on 25.02.2021 at 11:20 P.M. Learned counsel for applicant submits that as per the FIR version, the informant-Sri Ashok Kumar Verma, Sub-Inspector alongwith some other police personnel on the information of Mukhbir Khas raided at the shop of parchoon where applicant was adultering urea in deshi liquor. The police arrested the applicant and recovered 200 pieces of polythene, 500 gram urea and 20 liters of deshi liquor from his possession. The entire prosecution story made in the FIR is false, fabricated and concocted due to non-fulfilment of their illegal demand. The offence under Section 60(2) Excise Act is triable by Magistrate and no case is made out in any section of the IPC. There is no criminal history of the applicant. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has falsely been