Allowed

Karam Bahadur v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC27 Feb 2024JAPL/3/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a jail appeal against conviction under the NDPS Act, the High Court granted bail to a 70-year-old appellant who had served nearly seven years of a ten-year sentence, citing substantial time served, lack of family support, and reliance on Supreme Court precedents regarding bail during long pendency.

What did the court decide?

Appellant enlarged on bail on personal bond and two sureties; 75% of fine stayed.

Karam Bahadur vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 16

¶2

Case :- JAIL APPEAL No. - 3 of 2024

¶3

Appellant :- Karam Bahadur Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Appellant :- Rajat Rajan Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Rajat Ranjan Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and the learned A.G.A.

¶6

The appellant/ applicant, Karam Bahadur, seeks bail in this Jail Appeal, which has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 08.06.2023 passed by the Court of Additional Session Judge/F.T.C.(New)/Special Judge (NDPS Act), Lakhimpur Kheri, in Case No. 01 of 2017, arising out of Case Crime No. 19 of 2016, Police Station Chandan Choki, District Lakhimpur, convicting and sentencing the appellant under Section 8/20, N.D.P.S. Act to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,00,000.00, with default stipulation.

¶7

The appeal has already been admitted vide order dated 9.1.2024, the record of the trial court was summoned, which is available, and the learned A.G.A. was granted 3 weeks’ time to file counter-affidavit.

¶8

Today when the matter has been taken up in the revised-list, no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the appellant/opp. party.

¶9

Perused the trial court record, impugned judgment and the pleadings of the parties.

¶10

Leaned counsel for the appellant Sri Rajat Ranjan Singh submits that the appellant is a 70 years’ old aged person and there is no one in his family to do pairvi of his case. This case has been allotted to him by the High Court Legal Service SubCommittee, Lucknow Bench, and he is pressing for the bail.

¶11

He further submits that the appellant is in jail since 6.10.2016, when he was roped in this case. He further submits that the appellant was convicted for 10 years and out of 10 years he has already undergone detention of 7 years and 4 months, i.e., a substantial period has already undergone by the appellant in this

¶12

case. He further submits that appellant was falsely implicated in the present case and the provisions of Section 52A of the N.D.P.S. was not complied and the trial court has passed the judgment on the basis of surmises and conjectures. He further submits that due to heavy pendency of criminal cases before this Court, there is paucity of chances that in near future his appeal will be finally heard and decided. He further submits that the appellant has no any previous criminal history except this case and was not granted bail during trial as there is nobody in his family to do pairvi in this case.

¶13

In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on Hon'ble Apex Court judgment in the case of Kamal Vs. State of Haryana, 2004 (13) SCC 526 and submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to observe in paragraph no. 2 of the judgment as under :-

¶14

"2. This is a case in which the appellant has been convicted u/s 304-B of the India Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for 7 years. It appears that so far the appellant has undergone imprisonment for about 2 years and four months. The High Court declined to grant bail pending disposal of the appeal before it. We are of the view that the bail should have been granted by the High Court, especially having regard to the fact that the appellant has already served a substantial period of the sentence. In the circumstances, we direct that the bail be granted to the appellant on conditions as may be imposed by the District and Sessions Judge, Faridabad."

¶15

Learned counsel for the applicant has also placed reliance of Hon'ble Apex Court judgment in the case of Takht Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2001 (10) SCC 463 , and submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to observe in paragraph no. 2 of the judgment as under:-

¶16

"2. The appellants have been convicted under Section 302/149, Indian Penal Code by the learned Sessions Judge and have been sentenced to imprisonment for life. Against the said conviction and sentence their appeal to the High Court is pending. Before the High Court application for suspension of sentence and bail was filed but the High Court rejected that prayer indicating therein that the applicants can renew their prayer for bail after one year. After the expiry of one year the second application was filed but the same has been rejected by the impugned order. It is submitted that the appellants are already in jail for over 3 years and 3 months. There is no possibility of early hearing of the appeal in the High Court. In the aforesaid circumstances the applicants be released on bail to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sehore. The appeal is disposed of accordingly."

¶17

Learned counsel for the appellant lastly submits that in view of the facts, circumstances and the case cited above, the case of the applicant be sympathetically considered for bail.

¶18

Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the appellant have also been placed forth before the court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the appellant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required.

¶19

Counsel has attempted to point out several other inherent infirmities in the evidence and also the elements of improbability contained therein and it has been argued that with such infirmities on record there is a reasonable prospect of this appeal being allowed after final hearing takes place.

¶20

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail, but he could not oppose the facts stated above.

¶21

After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence, the period of detention already undergone, the unlikelihood of early hearing and conclusion of appeal, this Court is of the view that the appellant may be enlarged on bail. The bail-application is accordingly allowed.

¶22

Let the appellant- Karam Bahadur convicted and sentenced in S.S.T. No. 84 of 2017, arising out of Case Crime No. 25 of 2017, Police Station Tadiyawan, District Hardoi, convicting and sentencing the appellant under Section 376(2) I.P.C. and Section 3/4, POCSO Act, be released on bail on his executing personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

¶23

Considering the appellant’s financial condition and the present circumstances of this case, this Court stays 75% of the fine imposed by the trial court and the remaining 25% of the same shall be deposited by the appellant within 2 months after he is enlarged on bail.

¶24

On acceptance of bail bond and personal bond, the lower court concerned shall transmit the photostat copies thereof to this

¶25

Court for being kept on the record.

¶26

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court, Allahabad or certified copy issued from the Registry of the High Court, Allahabad.

¶27

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.

¶28

( Order on memo of appeal )

¶29

List this appeal in the due course for hearing.

¶30

( Shamim Ahmed, J. )

¶31

Order Date :- 27.2.2024 A.Nigam

¶32

Digitally signed by :- ANUJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Karam Bahadur v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karam Bahadur v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

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

Ram Pratap Dubey and 4 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Lalit Sharma @ Lalit Kumar Sharma vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Shivjeet vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow and Another

Karm Singh Verma @ Gore vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and 3 Others

Arif Quraishi vs Union of India Thru. Its Zonal Director Narcotics Control Bureau Lko.

Gita Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 7 Others