Allahabad High Court
Golu Chauhan vs State Of U.P. on 23 May, 2024
Author: Krishan Pahal
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:94009
Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45926 of 2023
Applicant :- Golu Chauhan
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Karuna Nand Tiwari
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Karuna Nand Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri R.P. Patel, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.361 of 2023, under Section 8/22 of The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station- Nichlaul, District- Maharajganj, during the pendency of trial.
4. As per prosecution case, the applicant is said to have been apprehended by the police on 30.7.2023 and 50 strips of Proxyco-spas capsule, which were 1200 in quantity, are said to have been recovered from his possession.
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. The applicant has nothing to do with the said offence. There is no compliance of mandatory provision of Section 50 & 52A of the N.D.P.S. Act. The trial is not moving ahead as no witness has been examined to date.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that criminal history of three cases assigned to the applicant stands explained as he has been enlarged on bail in those cases. The said bail orders have been filed as Annexure-SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit dated 17.12.2023. 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. The applicant is languishing in jail since 30.7.2023. The applicant is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
7. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application.
8. In the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, (2020) 11 SCC 648, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused may itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail.
9. In so far as criminal antecedents of the applicant is concerned, it is not the case of the State that applicant might tamper with or otherwise adversely influence the investigation, or that he might intimidate witnesses before or during the trial. The State has also not placed any material that applicant in past attempted to evade the process of law. If the accused is otherwise found to be entitled to bail, he cannot be denied bail only on the ground of criminal history, no exceptional circumstances on the basis of criminal antecedents have been shown to deny bail to accused, hence, the Court does not feel it proper to deny bail to the applicant just on the ground that he had criminal antecedent.
10. The well-known principle of "Presumption of Innocence Unless Proven Guilty," gives rise to the concept of bail as a rule and imprisonment as an exception. A person's right to life and liberty, guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, cannot be taken away simply because he or she is accused of committing an offence until the guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution states that no one's life or personal liberty may be taken away unless the procedure established by law is followed, and the procedure must be just and reasonable. The said principle has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in Satyendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022 (10) SCC 51. Learned AGA has not shown any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.
11. It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicant fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned AGA for the State.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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 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.
15. Let the applicant- Golu Chauhan, who is involved in aforementioned case 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 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.
16. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
17. 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 :- 23.5.2024/ Vikas
(Justice Krishan Pahal)
