Himanshu Sharma @ Chhuhari @ Ayush and Another vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:64825

Court No. - 68

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4106 of 2025

Applicant :- Himanshu Sharma @ Chhuhari @ Ayush And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶7

Heard Sri Sanjay Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants and Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record of the case.

¶8

The present bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of applicants, Himanshu Sharma @ Chhuhari @ Ayush and Harsh Kumar @ Kanhaiya, with a prayer to release them on bail in Case Crime No. 287 of 2024, under Section 8/20 N.D.P.S. Act and 3/25 Arms Act, Police Station Kotwali, DistrictEtawah.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicants has contended that 11.440 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 applicant are languishing is in jail since 29.12.2024. Criminal history of four cases against the applicant no. 1 and criminal history of 8 cases against the applicant no. 2 has been explained in the affidavit filed in support of bail application as well as in the supplementary affidavit filed today deserves to be

¶10

released on bail. In case the applicants are released on bail they will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶11

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

¶12

It is settled position of law that bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Balchand @ Baliay (1977) 4 SCC 308 , the Apex Court observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and opined para 2 "The basic rule may perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail, except where there are circumstances suggestive of fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like, by the petitioner who seeks enlargement on bail from the court. We do. not intend to be exhaustive but only illustrative." and considering the facts of the case and keeping in mind, the ratio of the Apex Court's judgment in the case of Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors vs Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 429 , 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.

¶13

Without expressing any opinion on the merits, let the applicants Himanshu Sharma @ Chhuhari @ Ayush and Harsh Kumar @ Kanhaiya, 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 :-

¶14

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

¶15

The applicants shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without

¶16

seeking any adjournment.

¶17

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

¶18

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.

¶19

Order Date :- 28.4.2025 Deepak/

¶20

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

Himanshu Sharma @ Chhuhari @ Ayush and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Himanshu Sharma @ Chhuhari @ Ayush 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abhishek Alias Kalua vs State of U.P.

Chhotu Yadav vs State of U.P.

Babu Alias Avid vs State of U.P.

Jhamman vs State of U.P.

Dhananjay Singh Chauhan and Another vs State of U.P.

Salik vs State of U.P.