# U.P.P.C.L.and another v. National Human Rights Commission and another

- **Citation:** (2010) 2 ILRA 579
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2010-05-27
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13821 of 2010
- **Bench:** Ashok Bhushan, Virendra Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/u-p-p-c-l-and-another-v-national-human-rights-commission-and-another-41635
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Constitution of India-Art.226- readwith
Section 18 of Protection of Human
Rights, 1993- Finding regarding violation
of human right-based upon enquiry and
the award of compensation of Rs.
300000/- held well within jurisdiction-
so for argument regarding compensation
of Rs. 1 Lac by Corporation can not be
enhanced-held-.misconceived-second
part relating to compensation of Rs. 4
Lac for electric shot to the wife of
petitioner in connected petition reduced
to Rs. 2,50,000/- keeping in view the
amount expended in treatment is only
Rs. 70,000 + 1 Lac with these alternative
order passed by commission upheld.

Held: Para 13, 15 &17

According to section 18(a) where inquiry
discloses the commission of violation of
human rights or negligence in the
prevention of violation of human rights
or abetment thereof by a public servant,
it may recommend to the concerned
Government
or
authority
to
make
payment of compensation or damages as
the
Commission
may
consider
necessary." Thus, the commission has
jurisdiction to recommend compensation
as
the
Commission
may
consider
necessary. The power of the Commission
under section 18 is not inhibited by any
other provisions or any State Legislature
or subordinate legislation. The power of
the Commission under section 18 is in
addition to any other provisions covering
the subject matter and not in derogation
of
any
other
provisions
of
law.
Entitlement of a person whose human
rights have been violated in accordance
with the relevant statutory provisions
governing payment of compensation,
does not in any manner create a fetter in
the right of Commission to find out the
magnitude of violation of human rights
and award a compensation. Thus, the
mere fact that under the orders issued
by the U.P. Power Corporation, amount
of Rs. 1,00000/- has been fixed in case
of death or injury by the Corporation,
does
not
fetter
the
rights
of
the
Commission to award compensation over
and above the amount of Rs. 1,00000/-.
Thus, the order of the Commission
awarding compensation more than Rs.
1,00000/- cannot be faulted on the
above ground.
580 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
Now comes the second writ petition
being writ petition No. 40513 of 2008, as
observed above the U.P. Human Rights
Commission
found
violation
of
the
human
rights
of
the
wife
of
the
respondent no. 2 and the findings
recorded by the U.P. Human Rights
Commission in so far as violation of
human
right
of
the
wife
of
the
respondent
no.
2,
deserves
no
interference by this Court.

In the facts and circumstances of the
present case, we are satisfied that the
order
of
the
U.P.
Human
Rights
Commission directing for payment of Rs.
4,0000/- be substituted with a direction
to make payment of Rs. 2,50,000/-. The
second writ petition is thus, partly
allowed by substituting the direction for
payment
of
Rs.
2,50,000/-
as
compensation within one month.

## Text

2 All] U.P.P.C.L.and another V National Human Rights Commission and another
579
respondent no.3 is misplaced one as she
has got two grown up sons who are well
placed in life as they are in police service.
She has, admittedly, got a piece of land in
her own name. There may be other persons
in the village having no land or source of
income or having no earning member in
their family. The two judgment and orders
of the Appellate Authorities are based on
irrelevant considerations and they cannot
be allowed to stand.

17. In the result, the writ petition
succeeds and is allowed. The suit filed by
the plaintiff respondent no.3 under Section
229 B read with Section 122 B (4-F) of the
Act stands dismissed.

18. No order as to costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.05.2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.
THE HON'BLE VIRENDRA SINGH, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13821 of 2010

U.P. Power Corporation Limited and
another

 ...Petitioners
Versus
National Human Rights Commission and
another

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Arvind Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.

Constitution of India-Art.226- readwith
Section 18 of Protection of Human
Rights, 1993- Finding regarding violation
of human right-based upon enquiry and
the award of compensation of Rs.
300000/- held well within jurisdiction-
so for argument regarding compensation
of Rs. 1 Lac by Corporation can not be
enhanced-held-.misconceived-second
part relating to compensation of Rs. 4
Lac for electric shot to the wife of
petitioner in connected petition reduced
to Rs. 2,50,000/- keeping in view the
amount expended in treatment is only
Rs. 70,000 + 1 Lac with these alternative
order passed by commission upheld.

Held: Para 13, 15 &17

According to section 18(a) where inquiry
discloses the commission of violation of
human rights or negligence in the
prevention of violation of human rights
or abetment thereof by a public servant,
it may recommend to the concerned
Government
or
authority
to
make
payment of compensation or damages as
the
Commission
may
consider
necessary." Thus, the commission has
jurisdiction to recommend compensation
as
the
Commission
may
consider
necessary. The power of the Commission
under section 18 is not inhibited by any
other provisions or any State Legislature
or subordinate legislation. The power of
the Commission under section 18 is in
addition to any other provisions covering
the subject matter and not in derogation
of
any
other
provisions
of
law.
Entitlement of a person whose human
rights have been violated in accordance
with the relevant statutory provisions
governing payment of compensation,
does not in any manner create a fetter in
the right of Commission to find out the
magnitude of violation of human rights
and award a compensation. Thus, the
mere fact that under the orders issued
by the U.P. Power Corporation, amount
of Rs. 1,00000/- has been fixed in case
of death or injury by the Corporation,
does
not
fetter
the
rights
of
the
Commission to award compensation over
and above the amount of Rs. 1,00000/-.
Thus, the order of the Commission
awarding compensation more than Rs.
1,00000/- cannot be faulted on the
above ground.
580 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
Now comes the second writ petition
being writ petition No. 40513 of 2008, as
observed above the U.P. Human Rights
Commission
found
violation
of
the
human
rights
of
the
wife
of
the
respondent no. 2 and the findings
recorded by the U.P. Human Rights
Commission in so far as violation of
human
right
of
the
wife
of
the
respondent
no.
2,
deserves
no
interference by this Court.

In the facts and circumstances of the
present case, we are satisfied that the
order
of
the
U.P.
Human
Rights
Commission directing for payment of Rs.
4,0000/- be substituted with a direction
to make payment of Rs. 2,50,000/-. The
second writ petition is thus, partly
allowed by substituting the direction for
payment
of
Rs.
2,50,000/-
as
compensation within one month.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan, J.)

1.

These
two
writ
petitions
challenging the orders passed by the
National Human Rights Commission and
other of U.P. Human Rights Commission
respectively, raise similar question of law
and have been heard together. Brief facts
necessary to be noticed of these two writ
petitions are; writ petition No. 13821 of
1010 has been filed by the U.P. Power
Corporation Ltd. challenging the order
dated 6.11.2009, recommending General
Manager U.P. Power Corporation to pay a
sum of Rs.3,00000/- as monetary relief to
the next of kin of deceased Ramadhar
Yadav. The deceased Ramadhar Yadav
was electrocuted, while working on an
electric pole of 11 KV Transmission Line.
Ramadhar
Yadav
was
an
electric
mechanic, who although was not regular
or causal employee of the U.P. Power
Corporation but the work was being taken
from him by the employees of the U.P.
Power Corporation and on a fateful day
on 6.8.2008, it is the case of the petitioner
that the deceased Ramadhar Yadav was
called from his house by one Markandey
Singh, skill coolie and Chandrapati
Pandey, S.S.O for repairing of 11 K.V.
Line. Ramadhar Yadav, while working on
the pole suffered electric current and was
taken to hospital by aforesaid two persons
and thereafter to Varanasi, where he died
on 8.8.2008. A complaint was filed by the
respondent no. 2, the son of the deceased
Ramadhar Yadav before the National
Human Rights Commission, who after
calling a report from the Corporation and
Senior Superintendent of Police, Mau
held an inquiry and thereafter passed the
impugned
order
holding
that
the
Commission has found in some other
cases that outsiders are some times
engaged in an unauthorised manner for
repairs of transmission lines. This practice
results in serious violation of human
rights inasmuch as the hapless worker is
not only exposed to insecurity of life but
is also deprived of the benefits of labour
laws.
The
National
Human
Rights
Commission recommended for payment
of a sum of Rs.3,00000/- as monetary
relief to next of kin of the deceased
Ramadhar Yadav.

2. In writ petition No. 41053 of
2008, the petitioner has challenged the
order dated 27.3.2008, passed by one
member
of
U.P.
Human
Rights
Commission. The facts of the case are that
one Smt. Chandrawati Devi, wife of Nand
Lal Yadav, while going to her paddy field
on 8.9.2007 at 8:00 a.m. in the morning
came in touch with a live wire of 11000
volt which had broken from pole and was
hanging near the earth. A complaint was
submitted by the respondent no. 2, the
husband of Smt. Chandrawati Devi in
January, 2008, stating that wife of the
2 All] U.P.P.C.L.and another V National Human Rights Commission and another
581
complainant came into contact of live
wire of 11 KV on 8.9.2007, while going
to her agricultural field and fell down,
who was subsequently taken to hospital,
she was being treated at Varanasi and an
amount of Rs. 70,000/- had been spent
towards treatment and an amount of
Rs.1,00000/- has more to be spent on her
treatment. The wire was broken on
6.9.2007 but no safety measures were
taken by the Corporation. The Electricity
Department or the State should be
directed to pay an amount of Rs.5,00000/-
. A report dated 24.3.2008 was submitted
to the Commission by the Executive
Engineer of the U.P. Power Corporation
on 25.3.2008 and the Commission by
order dated 27.3.2008 recommended that
the Corporation should pay relief of
Rs.4,00000/- within one month and
further recommended for action against
the guilty officials of the Electricity
Department.

3. Sri Arvind Kumar, learned
Counsel for the petitioner challenging the
orders passed by the National Human
Rights Commission dated 6.11.2009 and
the order of the U.P. Human Rights
Commission dated 27.3.2008, contended
that U.P. Power Corporation has already
framed
its
policy
for
payment
of
compensation to the persons suffering
death or injury due to electric accident. It
is
submitted
that
by
order
dated
19.6.2008, U.P. Power Corporation has
decided that amount of Rs.50,000/-
should be increased to Rs.1,00000/- in
case of death in the electricity accident,
with regard to injury in cases of total
disability an amount of Rs.1,00000/- and
in the cases of partial disability a
proportionate amount be paid on the basis
of medical certificate up to the maximum
of Rs.1,00000/-. Copy of the said order
has been filed as Annexure-7 to the writ
petition.

4. It has been further contended that
the Corporation having already fixed the
maximum limit of Rs.1,00000/- National
Human Rights Commission or the U.P.
Human Rights Commission could not
have awarded any amount more than
Rs.1,00000/-. He further submits that
Human Rights Commission holds only a
summary inquiry and the determination of
the amount contrary to the Rules and
Regulations framed by the U.P. Power
Corporation, cannot be made. He submits
that in any view of the matter, the amount
paid is excessive. Learned Counsel for the
petitioner further submits that there is no
violation of the human rights in the
accident
which
had
occurred
and
complainants were free to approach the
normal forum for compensation and the
Human Rights commission ought not to
have taken such decision.

5. Counter affidavit has been filed in
second writ petition by the respondent no.
2 to which a rejoinder affidavit has also
been filed. In the counter affidavit, it has
been stated that U.P. Human Rights
Commission has rightly awarded the
amount on the complaint submitted by the
respondent no. 2 but no action was taken
by the Corporation. The Human Rights
Commission has jurisdiction to pass order
of compensation and there is no ground to
interfere with the order of the U.P.
Human Rights Commission awarding the
compensation.

6.

We
have
considered
the
submissions of learned counsel for the
parties and have perused the record.
582 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010

7. The orders impugned have been
passed by the National Human Rights
Commission and the U.P. Human Rights
Commission
in
exercise
of
their
jurisdiction under section 18 of the
Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.
The Protection of Human Rights Act,
1993 has been enacted by Parliament to
provide for the constitution of a National
Human Rights Commission, State Human
Rights Commissions for better protection
of human rights and for matters connected
therewith or incidental thereto. "Human
rights" have been defined under section
2(d) which is as follows:

" "human rights" means the rights
relating to life, liberty, equality and
dignity of the individual guaranteed by
the Constitution or embodied in the
International Covenants and enforceable
by courts in India."

8. The definition of word "human
Rights" includes rights relating to life.
Any violation of rights to life can be a
violation of a human rights. Human rights
are thus minimal rights which every
individual must have against the State or
other public authority by virtue of he/she
being a human being. Article 21 of the
Constitution of India guarantees life and
personal liberty. Article 21 prohibits
deprivation of life or personal liberty
except due process of law. One of the
submissions which has been pressed by
learned counsel for the petitioners in both
the cases is that there is no violation of
human rights hence, National Human
Rights Commission and U.P. Human
Rights Commission committed error in
initiating proceedings under the 1993 Act.

9. Coming to the facts of the first
case, it is to be noted that in the said case,
services of deceased Ramadhar Yadav
was being taken by the employees of the
U.P. Power Corporation exposing him
threats of danger to his life. Ramadhar
Yadav was not an employee of the
Corporation nor he was protected by
various safeguards which protect other
regular/casual
employees
of
the
Corporation.
The
Commission
has
recorded a finding that Ramadhar Yadav
was taken from his home by two
employees of the Corporation Markandey
Singh
and
Chandrapati
Pandey
for
repairing of 11 K.V. transmission line.
The finding has been recorded that at the
instance of aforesaid two employees of
the corporation Ramadhar Yadav climbed
on the pole and while he was working on
the pole, he was electrocuted. National
Human
Rights
Commission
made
following observation in the order:

"The Commission has found in some
other cases that outsiders are some times
engaged in an unauthorised manner for
repairs
of
transmission
lines.
This
practice results in serious violation of
human rights inasmuch as the hapless
worker is not only exposed to insecurity of
life but is also deprived of the benefits of
labour laws."

10. The findings recorded by
National Human Rights Commission fully
prove that there was violation of human
rights of deceased Ramadhar Yadav when
his services were taken by the employees
of the Corporation exposing him threats
of danger to his life. Thus, the submission
of the learned counsel for the petitioners
that there was no violation of human
rights, cannot be accepted.

11. In second writ petition, the
findings have been recorded by the U.P.
2 All] U.P.P.C.L.and another V National Human Rights Commission and another
583
Human Rights Commission that a live
wire broke down and was hanging on the
ground in whose contact the wife of
respondent no. 2 Smt. Chandrawati Devi
came on 8.9.2007 causing her injury. On
the basis of report of the District
Magistrate and S.D.O, it was found that
on the pole insulator was of wood. The
Wood being old broke out due to which a
live wire hung four feet above the ground.
It has also come on the record that
information of the broken wire was given
by one Lalji Yadav to the Sub Station on
6.9.2007, which was not repaired. It is
statutory duty of the Power Corporation to
maintain the transmission line in such a
manner so as the peoples' lives are not
exposed to dangers and threats from the
transmission line. The officials of the
Power
Corporation
being
negligent,
human rights of the citizens are violated.
Hence, the second writ petition is also a
case of violation of human rights and no
error
has
been
committed
by
the
Commission in proceeding with the 1993
Act.

12. Sri Arvind Kumar, learned
counsel for the petitioner submits that
Corporation having already fixed the
maximum amount of compensation in
case of death as Rs.1,00000/-, in case of
total disability Rs.1,00000/- and in the
cases of partial disability proportionate
amount on the basis of medical certificate
up to the maximum of Rs.1,00000/-, the
Commission was not entitled to award
any compensation in excess of the
aforesaid amount. For considering the
aforesaid submissions, it is relevant to
note the object as well as scheme of the
Act as delineated from the various
provisions of the Act. The preamble of the
Act contains the key words "for better
protection of human rights" thus, the
object for enacting the Act was for
constituting a National Human Rights
Commission and State Human Rights
Commissions for better protection of the
human rights. The legislature felt that the
laws in existence, regulating the function
of the statutory and autonomous body
including the power corporation are not
sufficient to protect the human rights of
the citizens hence, the 1993 Act was
enacted. Section 18 of the Act contains
the steps which are to be taken by the
Commission during and after the inquiry.
Section 18 of the Act which is relevant is
quoted as below:

"18.
Steps
during
and
after
inquiry.- The Commission may take any
of the following steps during or upon the
completion of an inquiry held under this
Act, namely:-

(a) where the inquiry discloses the
commission of violation of human rights
or negligence in the prevention of
violation of human rights or abetment
thereof by a public servant, it may
recommend
to
the
concerned
Government or authority-

(i)
to
make
payment
of
compensation
or
damages
to
the
complainant or to the victim or the
members of his family as the Commission
may consider necessary;

(ii) to initiate proceedings for
prosecution or such other suitable action
as the Commission may deem fit against
the concerned person or persons;

(iii) to take such further action as it
may think fit;
584 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010

(b) approach the Supreme Court or
the High Court concerned for such
directions, orders or writs as that Court
may deem necessary;

(c) recommend to the concerned
Government or authority at any stage of
the inquiry for the grant of such
immediate interim relief to the victim or
the members of his family as the
Commission may consider necessary;

(d) subject to the provisions of
clause (e), provide a copy of the inquiry
report
to
the
petitioner
or
his
representative;

(e) the Commission shall send a
copy of its inquiry report together with
its recommendations to the concerned
Government
or
authority
and
the
concerned Government or authority
shall, within a period of one month, or
such further time as the Commission may
allow, forward its comments on the
report, including the action taken or
proposed to be taken thereon, to the
Commission;

(f) the Commission shall publish its
inquiry
report
together
with
the
comments of the concerned Government
or authority, if any, and the action taken
or proposed to be taken by the concerned
Government
or
authority
on
the
recommendations of the Commission."

13. According to section 18(a)
where inquiry discloses the commission
of
violation
of
human
rights
or
negligence in the prevention of violation
of human rights or abetment thereof by a
public servant, it may recommend to the
concerned Government or authority to
make payment of compensation or
damages as the Commission may
consider
necessary."
Thus,
the
commission
has
jurisdiction
to
recommend
compensation
as
the
Commission may consider necessary.
The power of the Commission under
section 18 is not inhibited by any other
provisions or any State Legislature or
subordinate legislation. The power of the
Commission under section 18 is in
addition to any other provisions covering
the subject matter and not in derogation
of
any
other
provisions
of
law.
Entitlement of a person whose human
rights have been violated in accordance
with the relevant statutory provisions
governing payment of compensation,
does not in any manner create a fetter in
the right of Commission to find out the
magnitude of violation of human rights
and award a compensation. Thus, the
mere fact that under the orders issued by
the U.P. Power Corporation, amount of
Rs.1,00000/- has been fixed in case of
death or injury by the Corporation, does
not fetter the rights of the Commission to
award compensation over and above the
amount of Rs. 1,00000/-. Thus, the order
of
the
Commission
awarding
compensation more than Rs.1,00000/-
cannot be faulted on the above ground.

14. Now reverting to the first writ
petition, an amount of Rs.3,00000/- has
been awarded as compensation to the
next kin of deceased Ram Adhar Yadav.
We are satisfied that no error has been
committed by National Human Rights
Commission in awarding a compensation
of Rs.3,00000/- to the next of kin of the
deceased Ramadhar Yadav. No grounds
are made out to interfere with the order
dated 6.11.2009. The first writ petition is
dismissed.
2 All] U.P.P.C.L.and another V National Human Rights Commission and another
585

15. Now comes the second writ
petition being writ petition No. 40513 of
2008, as observed above the U.P. Human
Rights Commission found violation of
the human rights of the wife of the
respondent no. 2 and the findings
recorded by the U.P. Human Rights
Commission in so far as violation of
human right of the wife of the respondent
no. 2, deserves no interference by this
Court.

16. However, there is one aspect of
the matter, which cannot be ignored. The
wife of respondent no. 2 came into touch
with the electric wire on 8.9.2007 and
complaint
appears
to
have
been
submitted in January, 2008, copy of
which has been filed as Annexure-7. In
the complaint, the respondent no. 2 after
narrating the incident that his wife came
into contact with 11 kv line and suffered
injury whose treatment was going on in
Meridian Nursing Home And Hospital
Private Ltd. Saidpur, Ghazipur Road,
Varanasi, it was stated in the complaint
that an amount of Rs. 70,000/- has
already been spent and it has been
clarified that a further amount of Rs.
1,00000/- is likely to be spent on her
treatment. After making the aforesaid
claim, in last paragraph of the complaint,
the respondent no. 2 claimed that State or
Electricity Department be directed to pay
Rs.5,00000/-. When in the compliant an
amount of Rs.70,000+1,00000 has been
disclosed towards the medical expenses
including the amount likely to be spent
on treatment, we see no basis for the U.P.
Human Rights Commission to award an
amount of Rs.4,00000/-. It has been
noted in the order that one of the toe
which was burnt has to be amputated.
The Commission was considering the
violation
of
human
rights
and
compensation to be paid on the basis of
such violation. When the complaint
himself in January, 2008 in his complaint
has stated total amount likely to be spent
was Rs.70,000+1,00000 we do not see
any reasonable basis for awarding
compensation
of
Rs.400000/-.
We
however, do not propose to remit the
matter to the U.P. Human Rights
Commission for redetermination of the
amount for payment of compensation to
the
complainant's
wife.
Since
the
violation of human rights is proved and
any
further
delay
in
payment
of
compensation shall be denying the relief
to the respondent no. 2.

17. In the facts and circumstances
of the present case, we are satisfied that
the order of the U.P. Human Rights
Commission directing for payment of Rs.
4,0000/- be substituted with a direction
to make payment of Rs.2,50,000/-. The
second writ petition is thus, partly
allowed by substituting the direction for
payment
of
Rs.2,50,000/-
as
compensation within one month.

18. In the result first writ petition
being writ petition No. 13821 is
dismissed. The second writ petition
being writ petition no. 40513 of 2008 is
partly allowed by modifying the order of
the U.P. Human Rights Commission
dated 27.3.2008 to the extent that an
amount of Rs.2,50,000/- be paid as
compensation to the wife of respondent
no. 2 within one month.

19. The parties shall however, bear
their own costs.
---------
586 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.06.2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AMAR SARAN, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.14090
of 2010

Saroj Jaiswal

 ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P.

 ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri P.K. Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
A.G.A.

Code of Criminal Procedure-Section 439Bail-Offence under section 272,273,304
IPC-Spot arrest with recovery of uria and
chemicals alongwith spurious liquor-and
powder of diazapam if urea added in
normal
alcohol-gets
converted
into
methyl alcohol-a poisonous substancefatal for human life-not entitled for bail.

Held: Para 9 & 10

It is observed in the order of the learned
Sessions judge that if ureas is added in
normal alcohol, it gets converted into
Methyl alcohol, which is a poisonous
substance and can prove fatal for human
life.

Having given my thoughful consideration
to the totality of the circumstances, I am
not
inclined
to
grant
bail
to
the
applicant.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Amar Saran, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
applicant
and
learned
Additional
Government Advocate.

2. The applicant was apprehended at
about 7.45 AM on 8.4.2010 in village
Sirihari selling illicit liquor. One gallon
containing 9 lts. of illicit country made
liquor and one plastic bag containing 22
pouches of country made liquor were
recovered from the applicant. In the said
bag some chemical powder and 1/2 kg urea
was also found from the possession of the
applicant. The applicant confessed that she
has purchased the said liquor from one
Bhagwat Singh and Rajesh Singh and
stated that in order to increase the
intoxication, she used to add the powder of
diazapam and urea. The case was
registered against the applicant under
sections 272/273 IPC, 60 Excise Act and
8/22 of NDPS Act at police station
Kapsethi, district Varanasi.

3. It was argued by the learned
counsel for the applicant that the police
had implicated the applicant in a case
under sections 272/273/304 IPC for which
they had visited the village, but the
applicant was bailed out in that main case.
There is no chemical analyst report of the
liquor
recovered
being
spurious
or
adulterated. So far as the recovery of
diazapam
from
the
applicant
was
concerned, she was granted bail by the
lower court.

4. It is further argued that no
independent witnesses have supported the
recovery and the prosecution version. The
applicant was actually present in her Maika
and that she was falsely implicated in the
present case.

5. Learned AGA, however, argued
that it is not material that the applicant was
bailed out in the other case under sections
272/273/304 IPC, PS Kapsethi because on
arrival at the village police were informed