Brahm Singh Vs State of U.P.

Court No. - 74

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17891 of 2022

Applicant :- Brahm Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ram Adhar Ram, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant-with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 147 of 2022 registered under Section 8/18 N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station Sadar Bazar, District Saharanpur, during pendency of the trial.

¶7

It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant is an ex-army personnel. Submission of counsel for the applicant is that 4 kg. opium is alleged to have been shown from the possession of the applicant; the alleged recovery is not supported by any independent witness. Further contention is that the statutory provisions of Sections 50, 51 and 52 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 have not been complied with in the right manner; the applicant has no criminal history. It has also been assured on behalf of the applicant that the applicant is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. It has also been submitted that the applicant is in jail since 17.03.2022.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant.

¶9

The Apex Court in the Case of Union of India vs. Shiv Shankar Keshari, (2007) 7 SCC 798 has held that the court while considering the application for bail with reference to Section 37 of the Act is not called upon to record a finding of not guilty. It is for the limited purpose essentially confined to the question of releasing the accused on bail that the court is called upon to see if there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and records its satisfaction about the existence of such grounds. But the court has not to consider

¶10

the matter as if it is pronouncing a judgment of acquittal and recording a finding of not guilty.

¶11

Considering the facts of the case and keeping in mind, the ratio of the Apex Court's judgment in the case of Union of India (supra), larger mandate of Article 21 of the constitution of India, the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused-applicant, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interest of the public/ State and other circumstances, but without expressing any opinion on the merits, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail.

¶12

Let the applicant, Brahm Singh 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.

¶13