Ramesh @ Indu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:21764

Court No. - 13

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6969 of 2024 Applicant :- Ramesh @ Indu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Vijay Nath Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and perused the record.

¶6

This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.144 of 2023, under Sections 8/20 NDPS Act, registered at Police Station Khodare, District Gonda.

¶7

As per contents of FIR, the incident is said to have taken place on 21.06.2023 when acting on a tip off supplied by police informer, the applicant was apprehended with two 2.56 Kg of charas in his possession.

¶8

Learned counsel for applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him which could be evident from the fact that there is no independent witness of the alleged recovery. It is also submitted that there is serious infringement of sections 50 and 52A of NDPS Act which puts the entire alleged recovery under suspicion. It is also submitted that the samples taken were not immediately sent for laboratory examination which may also indicate tempering with this sample. It is submitted that applicant is under incarceration since 21.06.2023 without trial having yet commenced. Previous criminal history has also been explained.

¶9

Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed the bail application with the submission that contents of FIR clearly indicate possession of huge quantity of illegal narcotics which is much more than the commercial limit. It is submitted that substantial compliance of Sections 50 and 52 A of NDPS Act has already been made. It is however admitted that applicant's previous criminal history has been

¶10

explained.

¶11

Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 has specifically held that bail is to be a norm and an under-trial is not required to be in jail for ever pending trial. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment are as under :-

¶12

"21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty."

¶13

"27. This Court, time and again, has stated that bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. It has also observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution."

¶14

Considering submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material available on record, it appears that applicant has been apprehended on the basis of information provided without any independent witness to the recovery. He is under incarceration since 21.06.2023 and as per report dated 07.04.2025 submitted by the trial court, evidence is yet to commence. Therefore it appears that there is no early conclusion of trial particularly since five witnesses are indicated in the charge-sheet. Considering aforesaid facts and circumstances, compliance of Section 37 NDPS is made out. Previous criminal history has already been explained in the supplementary affidavit.

¶15

Looking to the nature of allegations levelled against the applicant and submission made in the bail application, without expressing any opinion on the merits of case and considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, particularly since no reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses has

¶16

been alleged, prima facie, this Court finds, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

¶17

Accordingly bail application is allowed .

¶18

Let applicant, Ramesh @ Indu involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his/her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶19

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she/he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶20

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his/her counsel. In case of his/her absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him/her under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶21

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his/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, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him/her, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶22

(iv) 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. If in the opinion of the trial court, absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him/her in accordance with law.

¶23

Order Date : - 17.4.2025 Subodh/-

¶24

Digitally signed by :- SUBODH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ramesh @ Indu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh @ Indu 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Harjeet Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Arpit Srivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Sharukh Mansuri Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Widow Usha Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Sheru @ Arman Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Shiva Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another