Smt. Reshma v. State of U.P

Court No. - 74 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 53259 of 2023 Applicant :- Smt. Reshma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Amar Nath Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶1Sri Dinesh Tiwari, 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 Sri Dinesh Tiwari, 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. 640 of 2023, under Sections 8/21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station Kairana, District Shamli during the pendency of trial.

¶4Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. False recovery of 10 gram Smack has been shown from the applicant. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. The mandatory provisions of Sections 42, 50, 51 and Section 52-A of the N.D.P.S. Act have not been complied with. There is no FSL report to establish that the substance recovered is Ganja. The seized contraband is below the commercial quantity. The recovered Indian currency of Rs.21,220/- belongs to the applicant. The criminal history of the applicant has been explained in Paragraph-22 of the affidavit. The applicant is a lady and is in jail since

10.11.2023 and in case she is enlarged on bail, she 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.

¶6Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, this Court prima facie finds that mandate of Sections 42, 50, 51 and Section 52-A of the N.D.P.S. Act has not been followed. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. The seized contraband is below commercial quantity. The applicant has remained confined for almost one month 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, therefore, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶7Let the applicant-Smt. Reshma, involved in the aforesaid case, be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned subject to the conditions that she:

(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 :- 12.12.2023 SKT/- High Court of Judicature at Allahabad