Court No. - 48
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28204 of 2021 Applicant :- Anju Harijan @ Guddi Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Jawahir Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.
Heard Sri Jawahir Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant- Anju Harijan @ Guddi with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 161 of 2021, registered under Sections 8/22 of N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Jaunpur during pendency of the trial.
As per prosecution case, 80 gm of Diazepam has been recovered from the possession of the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. He next contended that the recovered quantity of diazepam from the possession of the applicant is 80 gm. and as per commercial quantity of diazepam prescribed in the NDPS Act is 500 gm, hence, the recovered diazepam from the possession of applicant is much below the prescribed commercial quantity. The police authority has not complied with the provision of Sections 50, 52 and 57 of N.D.P.S. Act. There is no independent witness. The applicant has no previous criminal antecedents and she is languishing in jail since 18.06.2021. In case, the applicant is released on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail and co- operate in trial. At the stage of consideration of bail it cannot be decided whether offer given to the applicant and her consent obtained was voluntary. These are the questions of fact which can be determined only during trial and not at the present stage. In case of prima facie non-compliance of mandatory provision of Section 50 the accused is entitled to be released on bail within the meaning of Section 37 of N.D.P.S. Act.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant.
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.
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, (2007) 7 SCC 798, 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.
Let the applicant, Anju Harijan @ Guddi, 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.
1. The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.
2. The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.
3. The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.
4. The applicant shall be enlarged on bail on execution of personal bond without sureties till normal functioning of the courts is restored. The accused will furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the court below within a month after normal functioning of the courts are restored.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 12.8.2021 Nitin Verma