Court No. - 66
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32460 of 2021 Applicant :- Salman Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Anand Prakash Pandey,Achyuta Nand Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.
Heard Sri Satendra Yadav, learned counsel holding brief of Shri Achyuta Nand Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rishi Chaddha, learned A.G.A. for the State.
A first information report was lodged as Case Crime No.129 of 2021 at Police Station-Dehli Gate, District-Aligarh under Section 21/22 of the N.D.P.S. Act.
The bail application of the applicant was rejected by learned Special Judge (N.D.P.S. Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Aligarh on 06.07.2021.
The applicant is in jail since 20.02.2021, pursuant to the said F.I.R.
Sri Satendra Yadav, learned counsel holding brief of Shri Achyuta Nand Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. 520 grams Diazepam powder was planted on the applicant to frame him in the instant case to show proficiency of police investigators. The commercial quantity of the said substance is 500 Grams. The weight of the recovered substance as stated in the F.I.R. is unreliable as accurate scientific instruments were not used for weighment. The recovery was made in violation of Section 42 read with Section 50 of the NDPS Act. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. No forensic science laboratory report has been submitted which confirms that the substance allegedly recovered is prohibited under the NDPS Act. Learned counsel for the applicant has explained the criminal history of the applicant and further contends that the applicant has become a soft target and a convenient scapegoat for the police authorities who repeatedly nominated him in a number of cases only to burnish their professional credentials. Lastly it is contended by the learned counsel for applicant that the applicant shall not abscond and will fully cooperate in the criminal law proceedings. The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence nor influence the witnesses in any manner.
Learned A.G.A could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. However, he does not contest the criminal history of the applicant as disclosed in the supplementary affidavit.
Courts have taken notice of the overcrowding of jails during the current pandemic situation (Ref.: Suo Motu Writ Petition (c) No. 1/2020, Contagion of COVID 19 Virus in prisons before the Supreme Court of India). These circumstances shall also be factored in while considering bail applications on behalf of accused persons.
I see merit in the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant and hold that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant-Salman involved in Case Crime No.129 of 2021 at Police Station-Dehli Gate, District-Aligarh under Section 21/22 of the N.D.P.S. Act, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions.
1. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
2. The applicant will not influence any witness.
3. The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
4. The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.
Order Date :- 20.12.2021 Ashish Tripathi