Allowed

Mamta Katheria v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC16 Dec 2021BAIL/25949/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed bail to the applicant accused of offending under Section 8/20 of the NDPS Act. Reliance was placed on the discrepancy in FSL sample quantities and delay in sending samples. Despite no opinion on merits, the court found prima facie satisfaction was met and released the applicant on personal bond with conditions.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail by furnishing a personal bond of Rs. One lac with two sureties in the like amount, subject to strict conditions regarding attendance and cooperation.

Mamta Katheria Vs State of U.P. — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 51

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25949 of 2021 Applicant :- Mamta Katheria Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Kumar Garg,Brij Lal Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record.

¶5

It is urged that the applicant is languishing in jail since 21.4.2021; 8.267 kg ganja and 1.3 kg charas was recovered from the possession of the applicant; it is submitted that a first information report was lodged on 21.4.2021; the FSL report is dated 13.7.2021; there is contradiction in the quantity of sample of Ganja taken from the place of occurrence and the quantity sent to the laboratory for examination; it is urged that 140 gm sample was collected from the place of occurrence while the FSL report reflects that 100 gm was received by the laboratory; it is further submitted that prosecution kept the sample in its possession for one month and 19 days for which no explanation has been furnished; it is submitted that there is a probability of the sample being tampered. Reliance has been placed on the decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Tara Singh 2011 (11) SCC 559 , to submit that the question as to how and when the samples are to be stored or as to when it was dispatched or received in the laboratory is a matter of great importance. No plausible explanation of delay in sending the sample to the laboratory, by the prosecution has been furnished. The report of the FSL has been filed as Annexure -1 to the supplementary affidavit; the trial is not likely to be concluded expeditiously in near future. Applicant undertakes to cooperate with the trial and not seek unnecessary adjournments except with the leave of the court, he further undertakes that if enlarged on bail, he will never misuse his liberty and will cooperate in the trial.

¶6

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶7

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witnesses and prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this

¶8

case.

¶9

Let the applicant - Mamta Katheria involved in Case Crime No. 230 of 2021, under Section 8/20 of the Narcotics Drugs & Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985, Police Station Firozabad South, District Firozabad be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. One lac with two sureties (one should be of his family members) each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶10

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶11

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶12

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶13

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶14

(v) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.

¶15

(vi) The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.

¶16

(vii) 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

¶17

declaration of such verification in writing. In view of the extraordinary situation prevailing in the State due to Covid-19, the directions of this Court dated 6.4.2020 passed in Public Interest Litigation No. 564 of 2020 (In re vs. State of U.P.), shall also be complied.

¶18

The order reads thus:

¶19

"Looking to impediments in arranging sureties because of lockdown, while invoking powers under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, we deem it appropriate to order that all the accused-applicants whose bail applications came to be allowed on or after 15th March, 2020 but have not been released due to non-availability of sureties as a consequence to lockdown may be released on executing personal bond as ordered by the Court or to the satisfaction of the jail authorities where such accused is imprisoned, provided the accusedapplicants undertakes to furnish required sureties within a period of one month from the date of his/her actual release." Order Date :- 16.12.2021

¶20

Arif

Mamta Katheria v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mamta Katheria v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Allahabad Development Authority Vs Presiding Officer and Another

Sheshveer Jatav Vs State of U.P.

Ramakant Chauhan Vs State of U.P.

Santosh Srivastava Vs State of U.P.

Man Singh Vs Union of India through Intelligence Officer

M/S Manish Engineering Enterprises Thru Prop. Vs Indian Farmers Fertilizer Coop. Ltd. Thru M.D. and Ors.