# Poornima & another (In Jail) v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2006) 2 ILRA 925
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2006-04-04
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.4649 of 2006
- **Bench:** G.P. Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/poornima-another-in-jail-v-state-of-u-p-40684
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Code of Criminal Procedure-S-439-Bailoffence
under
Section
3/4/5/6/8/9
Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act 1956
Act
read
with
323,504,506,109,117,366A,373
I.P.C.-
Applicant's not named in F.I.R.-even in
statements of witness under Section
161-No description of the activities of
applicants disclosed under section 164
Cr.P.C.-No specific evidence regarding
inducing specific person for prostitutionheld-entitled for Bail.

## Text

2 All] Rahul Kumar Yadav V. State of U.P.
925
N.D.P.S. Act-Section 37-Bail applicationarrest
of
applicant
with
800
gms.
Diazepam
tablets-in
four
packs
recovered-chemical report shows-weight
of 20 tablets as 100 mg.-accordingly
4000 tablets will come 800 gms.-nothing
to infer-after released on bail such crime
will not be repeated-held-No ground for
bail.

Held: Para 5

In the instant case section 37 N.D.P.S.
Act comes into play. There is nothing to
presume that the accused has committed
no offence. Moreover there is nothing to
infer that if the applicant is released on
bail he will not repeat the crime. There is
no ground for bail. The bail application is
rejected.

(Delivered by Hon'ble G.P. Srivastava, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
applicant and learned A.G.A.

2. According to the prosecution case
on 25.12.05 the applicant was arrested
and from his possession 800 gms.
diazepam tablets, in all 4000 tablets, kept
in four packs were recovered. The packets
were kept in a white polythene bag which
was held in the hand of the applicant.

3. The learned counsel for the
applicant has argued that the tablets are
below the commercial quantity. He has
argued that in the market diazepam tablets
of only 2 mg., 5 mg. Are available. No
tablet of 5 gm., 10 gm and 20 gm is
available in the market. Besides that he
has relied upon Vijay Kumar Yadav @
Sachin Vs. State of U.P. 2003 (1)
U.P.Crl. R. 561 wherein it was held that
the recovery of 5000 tablets of diazepam
which is less than the commercial
quantity as mentioned in Government
Notification.

4. In the instant case there is a
chemical report from Vidhi Vigyan
Prayogshala (Annexure-1 to the counter
affidavit) which shows that the weight of
20 tablets of diazepam was 100 mg.
Therefore the weight of 4000 tablets will
come to 800 gms. which is above the
commercial quantity, as the commercial
quantity of diazepam is 500 gms. No such
notification has been produced before me
as mentioned in the above judgment. In
the said judgment the weight of the each
tablets recovered has not been mentioned.

5. In the instant case section 37
N.D.P.S. Act comes into play. There is
nothing to presume that the accused has
committed no offence. Moreover there is
nothing to infer that if the applicant is
released on bail he will not repeat the
crime. There is no ground for bail. The
bail application is rejected.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 4.4.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE G.P. SRIVASTAVA, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.4649 of
2006

Poornima & another...Applicants (In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P.

...Opposite Party
With
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.2752 of
2006, Criminal Misc. Bail Application
No.1901 of 2006, Criminal Misc. Bail
Application No.3340 of 2006, Criminal
Misc. Bail Application No.3886 of 2006,
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.2683 of
2006, Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.
4946 of 2006.
926 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri M.W. Siddiqui

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
Sri Mahendra Pratap
A.G.A.

Code of Criminal Procedure-S-439-Bailoffence
under
Section
3/4/5/6/8/9
Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act 1956
Act
read
with
323,504,506,109,117,366A,373
I.P.C.-
Applicant's not named in F.I.R.-even in
statements of witness under Section
161-No description of the activities of
applicants disclosed under section 164
Cr.P.C.-No specific evidence regarding
inducing specific person for prostitutionheld-entitled for Bail.

(Delivered by Hon'ble G.P. Srivastava, J.)

These are the applications by the
applicants Lalita, Rajesh, Kali, Lalloo,
Abdul Hameed, Tara, Poornima and
Afsana who are involved in the offence
under Sections 3/4/5/6/8/9. The Immoral
Traffic (Prevention) Act 1956 Act and
Section 323,504,506,109,117,366A, 373
I.P.C.
P.S.
Manduadeeh,
District
Varanasi.

According to the prosecution case on
25.10.2005 one Ajit Singh, Chairman,
Swayam Sevi Sanstha Guria) received an
information from his wife Smt. Santwanta
Manju that in red light area of Shivdaspur
some minor girls are detained by Rahmat,
Tulsi and Lalloo. They induced the minor
girls for the purpose of prostitution and
use them for illicit intercourse and earn
their livelihood. They recovered 31 girls
from the house of Rahmat and Tulsi and
got an FIR registered on 25.10.05 at 21.30
hours against Rahmat, Tulsi, Lallu and
Afzal. Later on during the investigation
the names of the applicants and some
other persons came into light and they
were involved in compelling to induce
and seduce to illegal intercourse with
some another person for prostitution
under the management of brothel carried
by the applicants.

It is argued by learned counsel for
the applicants that the applicants were
neither name in the First Information
Report nor arrested on the spot nor there
is any evidence against them.

It has been further argued by learned
counsel for the complainant that the name
of the applicants came in the statement of
Raj Kumar, Rahisa Khatun, Manju and
Chandra.

It is pertinent to mention that in the
statement of the aforesaid witnesses
though the name of some of the applicants
emerged but no specific role have been
assigned to them nor there is any
description of their activities in the
statement of the witnesses recorded under
Section
161
Cr.P.C.
Moreover
no
statement of these witnesses was got
recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. which
could give weight to their testimony.
There is no allegation of keeping brothel
against the applicants. There is no specific
evidence regarding inducing or taking a
specified person for the sake of the
prostitution.

Besides that some legal pleas were
also taken i.e. search of the premises can
be made by a special police officer which
is very relevant for the purpose of bail.

In the circumstances I am of the
opinion that the applicants deserve to bail.
2 All] Poornima and another V. State of U.P.
927

Let the applicants Poornima, Afsana,
Tara, Abdul Hameed, Lalloo, Kali, Rajesh
and Lalita be enlarged on bail their
furnishing personal bonds with two
sureties each in the like amount to the
satisfaction
of
the
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate/court concerned in Case Crime
No.274 of 2005 under Section 3/4/5/6/8/9
The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act and
Section 323, 504, 506,109117, 366A, 373
I.P.C. PS. Manduadeeh, District Varanasi.

Application Allowed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.10.2005

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SHISHIR KUMAR, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.6135 of 2001

Imtiyaz Ahmad

...Petitioner
Versus
Additional District Judge, Fatehpur and
others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Farid Uddin
Sri Salamuddin Khan

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Akhilesh Misra
Sri Shrikant
S.C.

Code of Civil Procedure- as amended
2002-Ord. 6 rule 17-Amendment of
Plaint-Suit for cancellation of sale deed
and
Injunction-petitioner
was
dispossessed
in
the
year
1983amendment application filed in the year
1996-highly
belated-causing
great
prejudice-unnecessary
harassment
to
the other side can not be allowed.

Held: Para 8

But in the present case admittedly, the
suit was filed in the year 1982 and the
petitioner was dispossessed from the
land in dispute in the year 1983 but the
amendment application was filed in the
year 1996, which is highly belated and
the Trial Court has wrongly allowed the
application which clearly prejudice the
case of the defendant and allowing the
application will unnecessarily harass the
respondents, therefore, the Revisional
Court has considered the submissions
that the application filed on behalf of the
petitioner is highly belated after a lapse
of 13 years and as such it cannot be
allowed.
Case law discussed:
2001 (42) ALR-582, 2002 (93) R.J.-104, 2003
(4) AWC-2889, AIR 1957 SC-363, AIR 1960
SC-622,
AIR 1977 SC-680, AIR 1979 SC-551, AIR 1982
SC-824, 1996 (2) SCC-25, AIR 2000 SC-614,
AIR 1992 SC-1604, AIR 1996 SC-2358, 2001
(8) SCC-115, J.T. 1998 (4) SC-484, AIR 2002
(2) SCC-445, AIR 2002 SC-665, AIR 1953 SC235, AIR 1992 SC-1604, AIR 1974 SC-1126,
2001 (8) SCC-97, AIR 2002 SC-2394, 2002 (7)
SCC-559, AIR 2003 SC-674

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shishir Kumar, J.)

1. This writ petition has been filed
for quashing the order-dated 6.12.2000
passed
by
the
respondent
No.1
(Additional District Judge, Fatehpur) by
which the amendment application of the
petitioner has been rejected.

2. The petitioner filed a suit No.6 of
1982 in the Court of District Judge,
Fatehpur, for the relief of injunction and
for cancellation of the sale deed. It has
been alleged that during the pendency of
the suit, the petitioner was dispossessed
from the property in dispute on 20.3.1983.
The
petitioner
filed
an
amendment
application for amendment, claiming the
relief of possession. The Learned Civil
Judge (Senior Division), Fatehpur, heard