Held that since a special act (Drugs and Cosmetics Act) operates in the field, prosecution under multiple IPC sections is unwarranted. Relying on Article 21 and precedent, the Court allowed bail conditions.
Released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to specified conditions.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 78
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30425 of 2019
Applicant :- Smt Sheetal Devi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Perused the material on record.
It appears that the applicant along with three other co-accuseds has been implicated in offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 274, 275 and 276 I.P.C. Despite existence Section 32 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act the implication of the applicant under the aforesaid Sections is unwarranted under law. She cannot be prosecuted under these sections since a special act is operating in the same field. It has been stated in paragraph 11 of the affidavit in support of the bail application that the applicant has no criminal history to his credit and she is in jail since 06.06.2019.
Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence on record regarding complicity of the accused, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018)3 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant, Smt Sheetal Devi, involved in Case Crime No. 89 of 2019, under Sections- 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 274, 275 and 276 I.P.C., Police Station- Nibohra, District- Agra, be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.
fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the complainant is free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this court.
Order Date :- 3.9.2019 Rohit
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is eligible for bail despite the serious nature of the offences under IPC sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 274, 275 and 276.
Whether the implication of the applicant under the said IPC sections is unwarranted in light of Section 32 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.
Whether Article 21 of the Constitution mandates bail despite the gravity of the charge.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and anotherReferred¶7
(2018)3 SCC 22 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Sheetal Devi
Siddharth
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
