Allowed

Sangeeta Lodh @ Chinki v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC6 Jan 2021BAIL/40370/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Allahabad granted bail to an applicant arrested for possession of 218 gm of heroin. Relying on the quantity being below commercial limits and the applicant's criminal history, the court allowed bail on bond and two sureties with strict conditions to ensure presence in court.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties with strict conditions regarding court appearance and non-interference with witnesses.

Sangeeta Lodh @ Chinki Vs State of U.P. — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 72

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 40370 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Sangeeta Lodh @ Chinki Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pawan Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶6

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant Sangeeta Lodh @ Chinki with a prayer to release her on bail in Case Crime No. 167 of 2020, under Sections 8/22/23 of N.D.P.S. Act, police station Sonauli, district Maharajganj during the pendency of trial.

¶7

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that as per the prosecution case, on 19.9.2020 three persons namely, Dinesh Lodh, Sangeeta Lodh @ Chinki (present applicant) and Deepak Lodh were apprehended by the police while they were on patrolling duty. After interception of aforesaid persons and taking their personal search, 170 gm of heroin has been recovered from the possession of co-accused, Dinesh Lodh, 90 gm of heroin has been recovered from the possession of co-accused, Deepak Lodh and total 218 gm of heroin has been recovered from the possession of the applicant.

¶8

The main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that the recovered 218 gm of heroin from the possession of the applicant is less than the commercial quantity, therefore, provisions of Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act are not attracted in this present case. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case because she could not satisfy the illegal demand of the police personnel. The applicant is a poor vegetable seller and her shop is situated in the Sonauli market. It is further submitted that the applicant has a criminal history of five cases to her credit, which has been explained in paragraph No.

¶9

10 of the bail application mentioning therein that in all the five cases the applicant is on bail, copy of the said bail orders has been appended as annexure No. 2 to the application. It is also argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present crime with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and victimize her. The applicant is in jail since 19.9.2020. In case the applicant is released on bail she will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶10

Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage who is involved in supplying contraband, therefore, the applicant does not deserve any indulgence, but did not dispute that the recovered quantity of heroin from the exclusive possession of the applicant is less than the commercial quantity.

¶11

Having considered the submissions of the parties, without expressing any opinion on the merits, let the applicant Sangeeta Lodh @ Chinki involved in the aforesaid case, 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 with the following conditions that :-

¶12

(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.

¶13

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through her 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.

¶14

(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

¶15

the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against her, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶16

(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 her in accordance with law.

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

(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 declaration of such verification in writing.

¶20

It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.

¶21

Order Date :- 6.1.2021 Sumaira

Sangeeta Lodh @ Chinki v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sangeeta Lodh @ Chinki 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nirdosh @ Kalyan Singh Vs State of U.P.

Parmanand Baba Vs State of U.P.

Rizwan @ Kale Vs State of U.P.

Mohd. Faizan and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

Kamal Kishor Vs State of U.P.

Rahmat Khan Vs State of U.P.