Allahabad High Court
Shubham Pathak vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. on 23 April, 2025
Author: Manish Mathur
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:23210
Court No. - 13
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 870 of 2025
Applicant :- Shubham 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.
Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and perused the record.
This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No. 671 of 2024 under Section 8/21(c)/29 NDPS Act, Police Station Ram Sanehi Ghat, District Barabanki.
As per contents of FIR/recovery memo, the incident is said to have taken place on 10th December, 2024 when a police team acting on the basis of information supplied is said to have raided the premises in question with recovery of 600 grams of Morphine along with cash.
It has been submitted by learned counsel for applicant that he has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him which would be evident from the fact that there is clear violation of Sections 42, 50 and 52-A of the NDPS Act. It is submitted that although the recovery memo indicates that the Circle officer subsequently arrived at the place, but his name was not indicated nor his signature available on the recovery memo. It is submitted that the applicant is under incarceration since 11th December, 2024 with trial only at the inception. Previous criminal history of four cases have already been explained.
Learned counsel has placed reliance on judgment rendered by Supreme Court in the case of Karnail Singh versus State of Haryana, (2009), Supreme Court Cases (Crl) 887.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed bail application with submission that as per recovery memo, there is clear averment that applicant was found on the premises alongwith seized cash and narcotics. It is submitted that there is substantial compliance of Sections 42, 50 and 52-A of the NDPS Act. It is however admitted that previous criminal history of four cases has already been explained.
Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material on record, prima facie subject to evidence led in trial, it appears that there is no independent witness of the alleged recovery. The aspect of violation of sections 42, 50 and 52-A of the NDPS Act would be subject matter of evidence during course of trial particularly the aspect that the name of Circle Officer not being available in the recovery memo. The aspect of submission of learned counsel for applicant that the Circle Officer has also not been made a witness in the charge sheet is also an aspect requiring consideration as well as the fact indicated in paragraph 42 of the affidavit that the police personnels in the present case have subsequently been suspended and department inquiry is still ongoing.
The applicant has already explained criminal history and is under incarceration since 11th December, 2024.
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."
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.
Accordingly bail application is allowed.
Let applicant Shubham 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 269 BNS.
(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 84 BNSS 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 209 BNS.
(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 351 BNSS. 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 :- 23.4.2025
prabhat
