Allahabad High Court
Sundaram Pathak vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. on 16 April, 2025
Author: Manish Mathur
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:21302
Court No. - 13
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2167 of 2025
Applicant :- Sundaram Pathak
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.
Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and perused the record. Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record.
2. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.70 of 2025, under Sections 8/21 (C) of N.D.P.S. Act, registered at Police Station Ram Sanehi Ghat, District Barabanki.
3. As per contents of recovery memo, the incident is said to have taken place on 09.02.2025 when a police party intercepted the applicant and allegedly recovered 258 grams of smacks from possession of applicant.
4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him and that although the alleged recovery indicates 258 grams of smacks but the same is shown with its packing and therefore actual recovery is below commercial limit. It is submitted that contents of recovery memo also indicates serious lapses with regard to enforcement of Section 50 and 52A of the NDPS Act. It is submitted that in fact the aforesaid contraband has been planted upon the applicant due to previous enmity with police personnel on account of complaint having been filed against them by the applicant's father. It is submitted the applicant is under incarceration since 09.02.2025 with charge-sheet not yet being filed. Previous criminal history of three cases has already been explained.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed the bail application with the submission that recovery memo clearly indicates recovery of illegal narcotics from the possession of applicant. It is submitted that substantive compliance of provision of Section 50 of NDPS Act has been done and submits that even otherwise Section 52A of the Act is merely procedural in nature with compliance of the same also having been made. It is however admitted that applicant's previous criminal history has been explained.
6. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 has specifically held that bail is to be a norm and an under-trial is not required to be in jail for ever pending trial. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment are as under :-
"21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty."
"27. This Court, time and again, has stated that bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. It has also observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution."
7. Considering submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material available on record, it appears that applicant has been taken into custody only on routine patrolling by police party. There does not appear to be any independent witness of the alleged recovery of contraband narcotics. The aspect of violation of conditions under Sections 50 and 52A of NDPS Act would be subject matter of evidence during investigation and subsequent trial, if any. Investigation is yet continuing while applicant is under incarceration since 09.02.2025 with previous criminal history already having been explained.
8. Looking to the nature of allegations levelled against the applicant and submission made in the bail application, without expressing any opinion on the merits of case and considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, particularly since no reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses has been alleged, prima facie, this Court finds, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.
9. Accordingly bail application is allowed.
10. Let applicant, Sundaram Pathak, involved in the aforesaid 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 with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(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.
Order Date :- 16.4.2025
Subodh/-
