Allahabad High Court
Smt. Shail Kumari vs State Of U.P. on 14 May, 2024
Author: Krishan Pahal
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:86938
Court No. - 76
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 18535 of 2024
Applicant :- Smt. Shail Kumari
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ghan Shyam Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Ghan Shyam Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sru Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.84 of 2024, under Section 8/20 of The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station- Babeena, District Jhansi, during the pendency of trial.
4. As per the allegations of the FIR, the applicant and other co-accused persons were arrested by the police and from the possession of the applicant, 20.8 Kg. of Ganja alongwith Rs.1,300/- is stated to have been recovered.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant has nothing to do with the said offence. The quantity of recovered contraband has been inflated just to show it above the commercial quantity. There is no FSL report to suggest that the recovered contraband is Ganja or not. Her son-in-law was differently abled person, as such her daughter doing the work of medical representative and as such has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that there is no compliance of mandatory provision of Section 52-A of the N.D.P.S. Act. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 14.03.2024. In case, the applicant is released on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail.
6. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application.
7. In Arif Khan @ Agha Khan v. State of Uttarakhand (2018) 18 SCC 380, in which the Apex Court held that Section 50 of the NDPS Act mandatorily required search of the suspect/accused to be carried out in the presence of a magistrate or Gazetted officer, even if such a suspect/accused had waived the right to be taken to a magistrate or Gazetted Officer.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. Let the applicant- Smt. Shail Kumari, who is involved in aforementioned case be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.
(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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 her counsel. In case of her absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against her under Section 229-A IPC.
(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the Trial Court shall initiate proceedings against her, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A IPC.
(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) 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 her in accordance with law.
11. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
12. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.
Order Date :- 14.5.2024
Ravi Kant
(Justice Krishan Pahal)
