Ranjan Sahani and Another Vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:86044

Court No. - 68

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13522 of 2025

Applicant :- Ranjan Sahani And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Umesh Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Umesh Singh, learned counsel for the applicants and Shri Arimardan yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record of the case.

¶7

The present bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of applicants, Ranjan Sahani and Meghnath Sahani, with a prayer to release them on bail in Case Crime No. 679 of 2024, under Section 8/20 N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station Kotwali, District-Shamli.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants has contended that 16.800 Kilogram Ganja is alleged to have been recovered from the possession of the applicants. The recovered contraband is below commercial quantity. In fact no such recovery was effected from the applicants. The recovery of alleged country made pistols from the applicants are planted one. It is further submitted that since such recovery is not supported by independent witness, possibility of their false implication in the crime cannot be ruled out. It is next contended that in the present case the prosecution has failed to follow strictly the provisions of Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act. There is no report of chemical analyst. It is also argued that the applicants are absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present crime with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and victimize them. The applicants have no criminal antecedents, deserve to be released on bail. In case the applicants are released on bail they will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶9

Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicants by contending that the innocence of the applicants cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage who are involved in supplying

¶10

contraband, therefore, the applicants does not deserve any indulgence. In case the applicants are released on bail they will again indulge in similar activity.

¶11

Considering the facts of the case and keeping in mind 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-applicants, 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

Without expressing any opinion on the merits, let the applicants Ranjan Sahani and Meghnath Sahani, involved in abovesaid case crime be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that :-

¶13

The applicants shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶14

The applicants shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶15

The applicants shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶16

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶17

Order Date :- 21.5.2025

¶18

Deepak/

¶19

Digitally signed by :- DEEPAK KUMAR KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ranjan Sahani and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjan Sahani and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases