Allowed

Sushimta Shahi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC6 Jan 2025BAIL/2310/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous bail application under the NDPS Act, the Allahabad HC defended the release of the applicant on personal bond and two sureties. The court acknowledged procedural lapses and lack of public witness but granted bail citing Article 21.

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions regarding presence in court and no tampering with evidence.

Sushimta Shahi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:613

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2310 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Sushimta Shahi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Shailendra Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

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

¶7

Instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release the applicant on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 464 of 2022, under Section 8/20 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, P.S.-Rupaideeha, District -Bahraich.

¶8

As per prosecution version, the contraband substance, i.e. 1.475 K.G. of 'Charas' is said to be recovered from the possession of the applicant.

¶9

Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has falsely been planted by the police in the instant matter. He next added that 1.475 K.G. of 'Charas', is said to be recovered from the possession of the applicant, which is above than the commercial quantity, though, there is no public eye witness of the alleged recovery. He submits that the applicant has specifically mentioned in paragraph no. 10 of the bail application that there is non-compliance of section 50 of N.D.P.S. Act as the search was not conducted before the Magistrate/Gazetted Officer and the same has not specifically been denied, rather, in paragraph no. 12 of the Counter Affidavit filed by the State, it has been stated that the search is done on the basis of the consent letter given by the applicant, which clearly vitiates the mandatory provisions of law. He next submits that the recovery memo is evident that 25 grams of sample is taken from the reels, but, it has not been

¶10

disclosed that the sample was taken from all the reels. He next added and has drawn attention of this court that the sample was sent for examination to the F.S.L. on 30-12-2022, while the sample was taken on 13-12-2022, which also violates the provisions of Notification No. 1 of 1988. He submits that the applicant has no previous criminal history and the chargesheet has been filed and as such, there is no possibility that the trial would be concluded in near future. He added that the applicant is a law abiding citizen and she is languishing in jail since 13-12-2022 and she undertakes that in case, she is granted bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶11

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

¶12

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of record, it is evident that recovered contraband substance, i.e. 1.475 K.G. of Charas is above than the commercial quantity;, but, there is no independent public eye witness of the alleged recovery; there is non compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act; the applicant has no previous criminal history, as has been explained in paragraph 13 of the bail application and she is languishing in jail since 13.12.2022 coupled with the fact that the applicant has undertaken that in case, she is granted bail, she will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶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

¶14

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.

¶15

Let the applicant, Sushimta Shahi, 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:-

¶16

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

¶17

(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;

¶18

(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

¶19

(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.

¶20

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to

¶21

cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison. 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. Order Date :- 6.1.2025

¶22

AKS

¶23

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

Sushimta Shahi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sushimta Shahi 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ajay Kumar Tewari @ Ajay Kumar Tripathi and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Mohd. Shakeel vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko. U.P.

Arman Khan vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Urban Dev. Lko. and 4 Others

Galib @ Abu Mutallib @ Abdul Mottalib vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Shri Kant Tripathi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Shashank Shukla vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.