Allahabad High Court
Sonu Sharma vs State Of U.P. on 1 December, 2022
Bench: Shiv Shanker Prasad
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 90
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 46065 of 2022
Applicant :- Sonu Sharma
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Jawahir Yadav,Tanisha Jahangir Monir
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Shiv Shanker Prasad,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire record.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No. 34 of 2022, under Sections 8/20/29 of N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station - Sector - 24 NOIDA, District - Gautam Buddha Nagar with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is quite innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. It is submitted that applicant was not arrested on the spot. It is further submitted that there is no compliance of mandatory provisions of law with regard to search and seizure. There is no independent witness to support the prosecution version. There is no chemical analyst report that the alleged recovery is a contraband articles. There is material inconsistency in the prosecution version. It is also submitted that co-accused persons namely, Jitendra Saroj, Rakesh Pathak, Ravi Kumar @ Gola, Sushil Yadav, who were arrested from the spot and Hema @ Mami, having similar role as of present accused have already been enlarged on bail by coordinate Benches of this Court and copies of the bail orders have also been annexed to the affidavit filed in support of the bail application and the accused-appellant is entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. It is also submitted that criminal history of one case is duly explained in para 19 of the affidavit and in that case the applicant is also released on bail by the court below. Lastly, it is argued that the applicant is in jail since 10.02.2022 and that in case applicant is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. But he does not dispute the ground of bail parity of the applicant with co-accused persons.
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 (supra), 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- Sonu Sharma involved in the aforesaid 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 with the following conditions that :-
1. The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.
2. The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.
3. The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.
In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
Order Date :- 1.12.2022
Abhishek Singh
