Pinki @ Ashok v. State of U.P

Court No. - 74 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7455 of 2023 Applicant :- Pinki @ Ashok Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashutosh Kumar Mishra,Piyush Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party.

¶2The instant bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 680 of 2021, under Section 8/20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, Police Station-Gandhi Park, District-Aligarh during the pendency of trial.

¶3Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant was not arrested at the spot and the complicity of the applicant has been disclosed by the persons, who were found at the spot. No recovery of any incriminating article has been made from the applicant. The mandatory provisions contained under Sections 42 and 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act have been violated. The recovered motorcycle from the named co-accused cannot be connected to any case of theft. It is next contended that co-accused Boby has been granted bail by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 3886 of 2023, Boby v. State of U.P., vide order dated 23.03.2023. The applicant claims parity. The criminal history of the applicant has been explained in Paragraph-20 of the affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 24.11.2022 and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶4Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that the applicant has criminal antecedents.

¶5After hearing the rival contentions, this Court is of the prima facie finds that the applicant was not arrested at the spot. The name of the applicant was disclosed by the persons who were arrested at the spot. The co-accused Boby has been granted bail by this Court. The case of the applicant is on better footing than that of Boby. At this stage there is no substantive evidence against the applicant.

¶6Insofar as the criminal antecedents of the applicant are concerned, it is not the case of the State that applicant might tamper with or otherwise adversely influence the investigation, or that he might intimidate witnesses before or during the trial. The State has also not placed any material that applicant in past attempted to evade the process of law. In the opinion of this Court, if the accused is otherwise found to be entitled to bail, he cannot be denied bail only on the ground of criminal history, when no exceptional circumstances on the basis of criminal antecedents have been shown to deny bail to accused. Hence, the Court does not feel it proper to deny bail to the applicant just on the ground that he had criminal antecedent.

¶7In Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh, (2012) 9 SCC 446, the Apex Court in para-30 has observed as under: "We may hasten to add that when we state that the accused is a history-sheeter, we may not be understood to have said that a history-sheeter is never entitled to bail. But, it is a significant factor to be taken note of regard being had to the nature of crime in respect of which he has been booked."

¶8In the case of Prabhakar Tewari v. State of U.P. and another, 2020 (11) SCC 648, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused may itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail.

¶9Further, the applicant has remained confined for more than ten months and there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, hence, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶10Let the applicant-Pinki @ Ashok, involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties (in view of criminal history) each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to conditions that he:

(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;

(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;

(iv) shall not leave district without the leave of the trial court; and,

(v) shall appear on the first Sunday of every month at the Police Station concerned.

¶11In 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 :- 16.10.2023 SKT/- High Court of Judicature at Allahabad