Allahabad High Court
Sonu vs State Of U.P. on 14 March, 2023
Bench: Vivek Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 86
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5528 of 2023
Applicant :- Sonu
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Haya Rizvi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed today in the taken on record.
Heard Ms. Haya Rizvi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Mithlesh Kumar, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that 700 grams Dizapam is alleged to have been recovered from the possession of the applicant, when in fact no such recovery has taken place. It is next contended that it is not known as to how the weighment of allegedly recovered substance was done and 200 grams in excess to the commercial quantity has been found. There is no independent witness of the alleged recovery. Learned counsel for the applicant further contended that mandatory provisions of N.D.P.S Act has not been complied with in the present case. It is next contended that the applicant has criminal history, which has been explained in paragraph no.2 to the supplementary affidavit which is on record. It is next contended that there are no chances of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence. The applicant is in jail since 6.10.2022 and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail.
However 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 arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, 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 Sonu, involved in Case Crime No.300 of 2022, under Sections 21/22 of N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station Kotwali Sasni, District Hathras be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned on the following conditions that:-
(i) 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.
(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.
In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the order granting bail shall automatically stand cancelled.
Order Date :- 14.3.2023
Dev/-
