Nagendra Sahney v. State of U.P

Court No. - 74 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 43300 of 2023 Applicant :- Nagendra Sahney Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶1Sri Neeraj Kumar Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State, submits that the instructions have been received and he has no objection in case the bail application is decided on merits.

¶2Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party.

¶3The 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. 244 of 2023, under Section 8/21/23 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, Police Station Nautanwa, District Maharajganj during the pendency of trial.

¶4Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. False recovery of prohibited 50 injections of Diazepam, Rs. 350/- currency of Nepal has been shown from the applicant. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. Recovery of Indian currency of Rs.510/- and a mobile phone has also been shown from the applicant. The said Indian currency and the mobile phone belong to the applicant. The mandatory provisions of Section 50, 51 and 52A of the N.D.P.S. Act have not been complied with. There is no F.S.L. report to establish that the substance recovered is 'diazepam'. It is next contended that identically place co-accused Amir has been granted bail by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 41830 of 2023, Amir v. State of U.P., vide order dated 06.10.2023. The applicant claims parity. The applicant is in jail since 13.08.2023 having no criminal history and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶5Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶6After hearing the rival contentions and after perusal of the record, this Court prima facie finds that the mandate of Chapter V of the N.D.P.S. Act has not been followed. The provisions of Section 52-A of the N.D.P.S. Act have not been complied with. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. Identically placed co-accused Amir has been granted bail by this Court. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. Further, the applicant has remained confined for more than two and half months and after submission of the charge-sheet there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, more so when no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the evidence or delay the trial or intimidate the witness, without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶7Let the applicant-Nagendra Sahney, 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 subject to the conditions that he:

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

(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; and,

(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.

¶8In 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 :- 8.11.2023 SKT/- High Court of Judicature at Allahabad