Meena Pathak Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:22481

Court No. - 13

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1760 of 2025

Applicant :- Meena Pathak Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Anil Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶7

Instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release her on bail during the trial in Case Crime No.702 of 2024, under Section 8/21(c)/29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, P.S.- Ram Sanehi Ghat, District -Barabanki.

¶8

It is contented by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is a married lady and she was not involved in committing offence. He added that the police raided the house of the applicant and some contraband substance i.e. 750 gm of Smack, is said to be recovered though the same was not in the knowledge of the applicant. He added that the owner of the house is the husband of the applicant and some contraband substance was allegedly kept in the box and that was recovered but all the family members were inducted including the newly wedded bride. He next submits that the most of the mandatory provisions of NDPS Act, 1985 have not been complied with and the applicant has 03 cases previous criminal history and if she would be allowed to live in the jail, she can come in touch with the other hardcore criminals. She is languishing in jail since 28.12.2024. He next submits that in case, the applicant is granted bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶9

Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer of bail and submits that applicant was involved in committing the aforesaid offence as some contraband substance has been recovered from her possession and, as such, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.

¶10

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of

¶11

record, it is evident that the recovered contraband substance, i.e. 750 gm of Smack is below the commercial quantity; there is no independent public eye witness of the alleged recovery; there appers non compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act; there is no previous criminal history of the applicant and she is languishing in jail since 28.12.2024.

¶12

In view of above, the provision of Section 37 of N.D.P.S. Act is not made out against the applicant.

¶13

Considering the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a case of bail.

¶14

Let the applicant- Meena Pathak involved in the aforementioned crime be released on bail, on her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:-

¶15

(1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial;

¶16

(2) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. She shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through her counsel. In case of her absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against her under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code;

¶17

(3) 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.; and

¶18

(4) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against her, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶19

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be

¶20

verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶21

It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case.

¶22

Order Date :- 21.4.2025 Muk

¶23

Digitally signed by :- MOHD UMAR KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Meena Pathak v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Meena Pathak v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

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

Anuj Saroj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Taj Mohammad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Saddam @ Mohd. Saddam Qureshi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Shivkant Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and Another

Ravindra Kumar Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Dr. Aftab Iqbal Beg vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Medical Health Lko. and 4 Others