Hashim vs State of U.P.

Virendra Kumar Dixit, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the Appellant and learned State counsel on the prayer for bail and perused the record.

The Appellant has been convicted in S.T. No. 85 of 1998 and sentenced u/s 8/15 of N.D.P.S. Act with ten years'' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1,00000/-

Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that in the present case there was no independent witness of the recovery. It is further submitted that P.W. 3, S.I., M.L. Chaudhary in his cross-examination has admitted that the sample was not taken from all the bags containing poppy straw. It is further submitted that the recovered poppy straw was not weighed. The trial court has erred in appreciating the evidence on record. Learned Counsel also submits that during the trial the Appellant was on bail and did not misuse the liberty granted to him, as such, it can be said that in future also he would not misuse the same. This appeal may take a couple of years or even more in its final disposal whereas the speedy justice is a fundamental right. Learned Counsel also contends that the Appellant is in jail since 16.11.06, from the date of judgment and earlier also he was in jail during the course of trial so, in all he has completed a period of about one third of the sentence of 10 years awarded to him u/s 8/15 of N.D.P.S. Act. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the Appellant that co-accused Dileep Kumar and Rakesh Kumar Goswami having the same allegation have already been enlarged on bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 27.10.2010 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 2344 of 2006, therefore, the present Appellant is also entitled to get bail on the ground of parity itself.

Learned A.G.A. has, however, opposed the prayer for bail but he has not disputed the above contention made by the learned Counsel for the accused-applicant.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, perusing the record and considering the nature of allegations, arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for bail.

Let the Appellant (Hashim) be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 75,000/-and two local and reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned after proper verification with the conditions:

The accused shall attend the court in accordance with the conditions of the bond executed by him.

He shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused.

He shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer.

He will not tamper with the evidence.

The applicant shall not seek any adjournment when the prosecution witnesses are present.

In case, any condition is violated the court concerned shall inform the High Court so that necessary steps may be taken for the cancellation of the bail.

The fine imposed is stayed till the final disposal of the appeal. On acceptance of bail bonds and personal bond, the learned lower court shall transmit Photostat copies thereof to this Court, for being kept on the record of this appeal.