Allahabad High Court
Sudhir Sharma vs State Of U.P. on 16 May, 2024
Author: Krishan Pahal
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:88804
Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 19185 of 2023
Applicant :- Sudhir Sharma
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Virendra Singh Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised. This is the second bail application. The first one was rejected vide order dated 19.12.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 43155 of 2022.
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 237 of 2016, U/S 21/22 of The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station- Cantt, District -Bareilly, during the pendency of trial.
4. As per the allegations of the FIR, the applicant is stated to have been arrested with 140 grams of alprazolam powder on 23.6.2016 on the information of a squealer.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and to victimize him. Learned counsel has stated that there is no compliance of mandatory provisions of Section 50 and 52-A of the N.D.P.S. Act. Learned counsel has stated that the fundamental right of the applicant stands violated, as he is languishing in jail since 23.6.2016 and only one witness has been examined to date.
6. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgement of the Supreme Court passed in the case of Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb, AIR 2021 SC 712, has observed as under:-
"We are conscious of the fact that the charges levelled against the respondent are grave and a serious threat to societal harmony. Had it been a case at the threshold, we would have outrightly turned down the respondent's prayer. However, keeping in mind the length of the period spent by him in custody and the unlikelihood of the trial being completed anytime soon, the High Court appears to have been left with no other option except to grant bail."
7. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
8. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground of criminal history assigned to the applicant and that the recovery of the contraband article is of commercial quantity.
9. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that he has explained the criminal history of the applicant in the affidavit accompanying the bail application as well as in the supplementary affidavit. In support of his submission, learned counsel has placed much reliance upon the judgement of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and Another, 2020 (11) SCC 648, wherein the Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail, if otherwise his case for bail is made out.
10. In Arif Khan @ Agha Khan v. State of Uttarakhand (2018) 18 SCC 380, in which the Supreme 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.
11. The Supreme 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.
12. Considering the facts of the case and keeping in mind, the ratio of the Supreme 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 judgements referred above, the period of incarceration, 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.
13. Let the applicant- Sudhir Sharma, who is involved in aforesaid case crime number 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.
(i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence.
(ii) 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 him in accordance with law.
14. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
15. 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 :- 16.5.2024
Shalini
(Justice Krishan Pahal)
