Allahabad High Court
Gullu @ Tanveer vs State Of U.P. on 11 April, 2023
Bench: Ajay Bhanot
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?
Court No. - 35
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 388 of 2023
Applicant :- Gullu @ Tanveer
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Farid Ahmad
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.
Re: Criminal Misc. Correction Application No. 1 of 2023
Heard.
Correction application is allowed.
Necessary correction has been incorporated in the order dated 12.01.2023. The correct order shall read as under:
"By means of this bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No.281 of 2022 at Police Station-Hayat Nagar, District-Sambhal under Section 8/20 of the NDPS Act, Section 411 I.P.C. and Section 4/25 Arms Act. The applicant is in jail since 06.12.2022.
The bail application of the applicant was rejected by the learned trial court on 15.12.2022.
The following arguments made by Shri Farid Ahmad, learned counsel on behalf of the applicant, which could not be satisfactorily refuted by Shri Paritosh Kumar Malviya, learned A.G.A.-I from the record, entitle the applicant for grant of bail:
(1). 260 Grams Charas were planted on the applicant to implicate him in this case to burnish the credentials of the police authorities.
(2). There is no independent witness to the recovery.
(3). The recovered substance is far below the commercial quantity notified under the Act.
(4). The search and seizure has been made in violation of the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act.
(5). The applicant does not have any criminal history apart from the instant case.
(6). The applicant is not a flight risk. The applicant being a law abiding citizen has always cooperated with the investigation and undertakes to cooperate with the court proceedings. There is no possibility of his influencing witnesses, tampering with the evidence or reoffending.
In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant-Gullu @ Tanveer be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below. The following conditions be imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence or influence any witness during the trial.
(ii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted."
The applicant was granted bail by order dated 12.01.2023. The correction application was filed on 10.04.2023. Sri Farid Ahmad, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the typographical error could not be noticed nor was the applicant able to communicate the same to the counsel for the applicant as his old, ailing and illiterate mother did not understand the import of the order.
This Court had issued various directions for implementation of rights of prisoners who are bereft of family support or do not have effective pairokars or are financially destitute or in any manner victims of undeserved want within the meaning of Legal Services Authority Act, in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 16961 of 2022 Anil Gaur vs. State of U.P. and Application under Section 482 No. 2613 of 2023 Arvind Singh vs. State of U.P.
Evidently, the delay in filing of the correction applicant was on account of the fact that the applicant belongs to a socially excluded and economically downtrodden strata of the society. The delay in filing of the correction application has resulted in unnecessary and illegal incarceration of the applicant. The applicant could not file the correction application in a timely fashion and could not be enlarged on bail even three months after his bail application was allowed by this Court due to absence of effective pairokar. The District Legal Services Authority was under an obligation to provide assistance to the applicant to ensure that the correction application was promptly filed and placed before this Court.
Evidently, the District Legal Services Authority of the District Sambhal had failed to make the necessary enquiries and provide necessary support systems as contemplated in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 16961 of 2022 Anil Gaur vs. State of U.P. and Application under Section 482 No. 2613 of 2023 Arvind Singh vs. State of U.P. resulting in the applicant's detention even after he was enlarged on bail.
Direction is accordingly issued to all the District Legal Services Authority in the State to ensure that regular inspections of prisons are conducted. Details of prisoners who are enlarged on bail but for various reasons are not set at liberty are duly recorded and steps are taken to ameliorate their plight in light of judgment of this Court in Anil Gaur(supra) and Arvind Singh(supra) and this order. In such cases the requisite assistance shall be promptly provided by the District Legal Services Authorities.
The Secretary, State Legal Services Authority shall also ensure that a regular log book of the compliance of the directions of this Court in Anil Gaur(supra) and Arvind Singh(supra) as well as this order is maintained at the District as well as the State level by the District Legal Services Authority and State Legal Services Authority respectively.
A copy of this order may be placed before the Secretary, State Legal Services Authority as well as Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Sambhal for appropriate action.
Order Date :- 11.4.2023
Vandit
