Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:21464 Court No. - 68 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 21214 of 2024 Applicant :- Badanno @ Rachna Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Agni Pal Singh,Dileep Kumar Vishwakarma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Arimardhan Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record of the case. The present bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of applicant, Badanno @ Rachna with a prayer to release her on bail in Case Crime No. 125 of 2024, under Sections 8/20 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station- Gujaini, District- Kanpur Nagar. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that as per prosecution version, 5 Kg 154 grams of Charas was recovered from the bag carried by the applicant. In fact no such recovery was effected from the applicant. It is further submitted that since such recovery is not supported by independent witness, possibility of her false implication in the crime cannot be ruled out. It is next contended that there is delay of 08 days in sending the samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that 11 months of child is with the applicant in the Jail. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that charge sheet in this case has already been produced before the Trial Court on 16.7.2024 and cognizance in the matter has already been taken. Whatever the recovery is possible, the same has already been effected. Further custodial interrogation of the applicant is not required in the matter. It is also argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present crime with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and victimize her. The applicant, who is in jail since 28.4.2024 having one case of criminal history to her credit, deserves to be released on bail. In case the applicant is released on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail. Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage who is involved in supplying of huge quantity of contraband, therefore, the applicant does not deserve any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail she will again indulge in similar activity. 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. 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. Considering all above facts and circumstances, the nature of accusations, severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness, period of incarceration as well as mandate of the 1st Proviso of Section 437 (1) Cr.P.C. and prima facie case, but without commenting on merit of case, a case for bail is made out. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the accused-applicant, Badanno @ Rachna, involved in above mentioned case crime number be released on bail, on her executing a personal bond and two reliable heavy sureties each, in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial. 2. The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment. 3. The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail. 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. Order Date :- 4.2.2025 Ravi Prakash (Ashutosh Srivastava, J.) Digitally signed by :- RAVI PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad