Allahabad High Court
Mohd. Afaq vs State Of U.P. on 22 June, 2021
Bench: Rajesh Singh Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 8
Case :- BAIL No. - 5165 of 2021
Applicant :- Mohd. Afaq
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State through Video conferencing.
This bail application has been preferred by the applicant, Mohd. Afaq, who is languishing in jail since 06.04.2021 in Case Crime No.137 of 2021, under Section 8/21 of Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station-Zaidpur, District-Barabanki.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in this case as he has not committed any offence as alleged in the First Information Report. As per the prosecution story narrated in the First Information Report, 100 gm. Morphine has been shown to be recovered from the possession of the present applicant. The provisions of the required Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (here-in-after referred to as the "N.D.P.S. Act") has not been followed at the time of alleged recovery. He has further submitted that the recovered item is much below than the commercial quantity inasmuch as the commercial quantity of Morphine is 250 gms.
Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn attention of this court towards the supplementary affidavit filed on 17.06.2021, wherein in paras-2 and 3 the criminal history of the present applicant has been explained. In para-2 of the supplementary affidavit, it has been stated that one criminal case was registered against the present applicant in the year 1997 bearing Case Crime No.172 of 1997 relating to Police Station-Zaidpur, District-Barabanki, in which, the present applicant has been acquitted by the learned trial court vide judgment and order dated 29.02.2000 passed in Criminal Trial No.101 of 1997, which is contained as Annexure No.SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit. In para-3 of the supplementary affidavit, it has been stated that another criminal case bearing Case Crime No.2034 of 2011 relating to Police Station-Kotwali, District-Barabanki is pending, in which, the present applicant is on bail granted by this Court vide order dated 17.02.2012 passed in Bail Application No.1255 of 2012, which is contained as Annexure No.SA-2 to the supplementary affidavit.
The aforesaid facts have not been disputed by the learned Additional Government Advocate inasmuch as the item recovered from the possession of the present applicant is below the commercial quantity of 250 gms. and the present applicant has got no criminal history except the aforesaid two cases.
As per learned counsel for the present applicant, after the year 2012 the present applicant has again been falsely implicated. Besides, the charge-sheet has already been filed in this case. Learned counsel for the applicant, on behalf of the applicant, undertakes that the present applicant shall cooperate with the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of bail, if granted to him, and shall abide by the terms and conditions of the bail order.
On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the prayer for bail by submitting that since the role of the present applicant was found in the commission of crime, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of bail, but he could not dispute the aforesaid factual contention of learned counsel for the applicant.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and also perusing the material available on record, but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail.
Let accused-applicant, Mohd. Afaq, involved in the aforesaid case crime number be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local and reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned on following conditions, which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
1.The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.
2.The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
3.In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.
4.The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 22.6.2021
Suresh/
