Shivani Nayak v. State of U.P
Case at a glance
Outcome
Bail granted
Accordingly, the bail application is allowed
Provisions considered
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 s. 483
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ss. 8, 20, 50
- Constitution of India art. 21
Judgment
Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Arimardan Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record of the case. The present bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed on behalf of applicant, Shivani Nayak with a prayer to release her on bail in Case Crime No. 40 of 2025, under Section 8/20 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station- Qadarchowk, District- Budaun. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that 20 Kg of Ganja is alleged to have been recovered from the joint possession of 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 in the present case the prosecution has failed to follow strictly the provisions of Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act.
Operative part
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 18.2.2025 having no criminal history to her credit, deserves to be released on bail. In case the applicant is released on bail she 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 contraband, therefore, the applicant does not deserve any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail she will again indulge in similar activity. Considering the facts of the case, 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. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant Shivani Nayak involved in abovesaid case crime be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that :-
The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.
The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.
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 :- 21.5.2025 Ravi Prakash (Ashutosh Srivastava, J.) RAVI PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the bail application is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 483; Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — ss. 8, 20, 50; Constitution of India — art. 21.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Allahabad High Court, on 21 May 2025. The bench was ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.