2013 ALL MR (Cri) 991
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)
A.P. BHANGALE, J.
Rajiyabi @ Nani W/O. Sheikh Hussain Vs. State
Criminal Application (BA) No.29 of 2012
3rd February, 2012
Petitioner Counsel: Mr. A.K.BHANGDE
Respondent Counsel: Ms R.A.DESHPANDE
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (1985), Ss.20, 22, 25 - Grant of bail - Nothing was recovered from accused as per FIR - Seizure panchanama silent about the disclosure made by accused - Accused agreed to abide by all the conditions imposed on grant of bail - Accused would be entitled to conditional bail. 2006 ALL MR (Cri) 2405. (Paras 4, 7)
Cases Cited:
Sangeeta Y. Gaikwad Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2006 ALL MR (Cri) 2405 [Para 7]
Sayyad Ismile Vs. State of Maharashtra, Cri.App. No.397/2011, Dt.19/7/2011 [Para 7]
JUDGMENT
JUDGMENT :- CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.43 OF 2012
Heard Mr.A.K.Bhangde, Adv. for the applicant and Ms R.A.Deshpande, A.P.P. for respondent/State.
2. For the reasons stated in the application, same is allowed. However, the applicant shall produce copy of the relevant documents at the time of hearing, if required by the Court.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.29 OF 2012
3. Heard Mr.A.K.Bhangde, Adv. for the applicant and Ms R.A.Deshpande, A.P.P. for respondent/State.
4. By this application, the applicant has prayed for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.3028 of 2011 reported at Kholapuri Gate, Amravati on 29.6.2011, u/Ss. 20, 22, 25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The learned Advocate for the applicant, in support of the bail application, submitted that the present applicant is innocent and is falsely implicated in this matter and nothing was recovered from her as alleged in the First Information Report dt.29.6.2011. Furthermore, according to him, entire seizure panchanama is silent about the disclosure made by accused no.1 as also about presence of the present accused.
5. According to the learned A.P.P., the applicant has past history of commission of crimes as four criminal cases were registered against her in the district of Amravati under the NDPS Act and hence, the A.P.P. objects for granting bail.
6. The learned Advocate for the applicant, in reply to the above submissions, contended that all the cases registered against the applicant herein resulted in acquittal in the year 2008. It is also submitted that the applicant is aged about 60 years and it was not possible for her to bring ganja weighing about 61 kgs and 700 grams in the house of co-accused Sk. Rajjak, on the basis of whose statement the applicant is sought to be implicated in this case.
7. The learned Advocate for the applicant also placed reliance upon the ruling in the case of Sangeeta Y. Gaikwad .vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2006 ALL MR (Cri) 2405 and unreported order dt.19.7.2011 in Criminal Application No.397 of 2011, Sayyad Ismile .vs. State of Maharashtra passed by this Court. He also assured that the applicant shall abide by all the conditions that may be imposed against her on grant of bail. Hence, the following order.
ORDER
8. The applicant be released upon her executing a P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two or more sureties in the like amount.
9. She shall not commit any crime while on bail.
10. She shall attend the Sessions Court on all the dates of hearing.
11. She shall inform her address or change in address, if any, during the trial to the Investigating Officer and to the learned trial Judge.
12. She shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner.