Sani vs State Of U.P.
2022 Latest Caselaw 1480 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 70
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 538 of 2022
 

 
Appellant :- Sani
 
Respondent :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Rohit Nandan Pandey
 
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

Heard Learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

The appeal is admitted for hearing.

List in due course.

Order on Criminal Misc. Bail Application under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C

Heard learned counsel for the appellant/applicant and learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

This application has been filed on behalf of the appellant/applicant for suspension of sentence and grant of bail during pendency of this appeal.

By the judgement and order dated 14.12.2021, passed by the trial Court, the appellant has been convicted under Section 8/20 (b)(ii)(B) NDPS Act and sentenced to six years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 40,000.

It has been argued by the learned counsel for appellant/applicant that alleged recovery of 235 gram diazepam shown from the appellant, is thoroughly false. As per prosecution version, in the same incident one Mohan Lal was also apprehended along with appellant and recovery of 225 gram diazepam was shown from said Mohan Lal but said Mohan Lal has already been acquitted by the trial Court vide judgment and order dated 19.03.2019, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.4, Etah, whereas the prosecution case and evidence is same against appellant and said co-accused Mohan Lal. It was stated that provisions of Section 50 NDPS Act have not been complied with. Further, there is no independent witness of alleged recovery and all the witnesses examined by the prosecution, are police officials. The statements of recovery witnesses, examined before the trial Court, were referred and it has been submitted that there are material contradictions in the statements of witnesses. Learned counsel submitted that there is no credible evidence against the appellant and that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in correct perspective and that similarly placed co-accused has already been acquitted. It has further been submitted that during trial, the appellant was on bail and he has never misused the liberty of bail and now he is languishing in jail since 14.12.2021.

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and argued that recovery of 235 gram diazepam has been shown from appellant.

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, quantum of sentence awarded to the appellant/applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that appellant/applicant is entitled to be released on bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed.

Let the appellant/applicant Sani convicted and sentenced in Session Trial No.35 of 2013 (State vs. Sani), Case Crime No. 390 of 2013, under Section 8/20 (b)(ii)(B) NDPS Act, P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Etah, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties (one should be of his family member) each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

On acceptance of bail bonds and personal bond, the court below shall transmit photostat copies thereof to this Court for being kept on the record.

Realization of half of the amount of fine imposed by the trial court shall remain stayed during the pendency of this appeal.

Order Date :- 26.4.2022

A. Tripathi