Allowed

Nimisha Alias Mili v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC25 Jun 2021BAIL/9191/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court disposed of a bail application under Section 439 CrPC filed by Nimisha Alias Mili in a case involving possession of charas. The court found it a fit case for bail without commenting on the merits, issuing a personal bond and two sureties subject to stringent conditions.

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant on bail subject to personal bond, two sureties, and strict attendance conditions at the trial court.

Nimisha Alias Mili Vs State of U.P. — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 78

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9191 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Nimisha Alias Mili Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ankit Gaur,Ali Hasan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant through video conferencing, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant seeking enlargement on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 394 of 2020, under Sections 18/20 of N.D.P.S. Act at Police Station Bithur, District Kanpur Nagar.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that three packets are said to have been recovered from the possession of the applicant. He has further submitted that three packets of contraband charas (weighted about 4.800 Kg) were recovered from the possession of the applicant but out of which only 100 grams was taken as sample for its chemical analysis to verify the contents of packtes and send to Forensic Science laboratory Jhansi, which is not specific reply of order dated 10.2.2021 passed by this Court. He has further submitted that mandatory provision of Section 50 of N.D.P.S. Act shall be complied strictly otherwise the fundamental rights of an accused is infringed as decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arif Khan alias Aagha Khan vs. State of Uttarakhan (2018 (104) ACC 610 (SC)) . There is no independent eye witness of the alleged recovery, which has been shown by the police. The applicant is having no previous criminal history and in case the he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. The applicant is in jail since 06.08.2021.

¶8

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposes the application for bail.

¶9

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusal of record and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment as well as totality of facts and circumstances, at this stage without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.

¶10

Let the applicant- Nimisha Alias Mili , who is involved in aforementioned 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 following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶11

(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE 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.

¶12

(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 IPC.

¶13

(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., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF 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 IPC.

¶14

(iv) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) 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.

¶15

(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT.

¶16

In case of breach of of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶17

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶18

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

¶19

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

Order Date :- 25.6.2021 SY

Nimisha Alias Mili v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nimisha Alias Mili 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

Ranjeet Vs State of U.P.

Rajeev Vs State of U.P.

Sagar @ Jaiveer Vs State of U.P. and another

Bhoore and Another Vs State of U.P.

Shivam Vs State of U.P.

Munna Khan Vs State of U.P.