Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6505 of 2021 Applicant :- Sushila @ Nathaniya Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Dubey,Mrityunjay Dwivedi,Pramod Kumar Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.
Supplementary Affidavit and Rejoinder Affidavits, filed today, are taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Azad Singh, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive, on the basis of false and planted recovery of 550 gram diazepam recovered from the possession of the applicant and there is no public witness of the alleged recovery. It is further contended that mandatory provisions of Section 50 of N.D.P.S. Act has not been complied with. At the stage of consideration of bail it cannot be decided whether offer given to the applicant and her consent obtained by voluntary. These are the questions of fact which can be determined only during trial and not at the present stage. The applicant has criminal history of one case wherein he has been granted bail. It is also submitted that the applicant is jail since 30.12.2020 and she undertakes that she will not misuse liberty, if granted.
Learned counsel for the department as well as learned A.G.A. have opposed the prayer for bail.
Courts have taken notice of 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.
Having heard submissions of learned counsel of both sides, considering nature of accusation, severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and another, (2018) 3 SCC 22, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a case of bail.
Let the applicant- Sushila alias Nathaniya involved in Case Crime No. 390 of 2020, under Sections 21/22 N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station Sasni, District Hathras be released on bail, on her executing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:
1. The applicant will attend and co-operate the trial proceedings pending before the court concerned on the date fixed after release.
2. She will not tamper with the witnesses.
3. She will not indulge in any illegal activities during the bail period.
The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.
It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.
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 computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.
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 :- 30.9.2021 Digamber