Allahabad High Court
Mohammad Qamar vs State Of U.P. on 16 August, 2022
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 88
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1656 of 2014
Appellant :- Mohammad Qamar
Respondent :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- Vishal Mohan Gupta,Dhananjay Singh,Diwakar Tiwari,Mohd. Umar Khan,Rakesh Tripathi,Shrikant Chaturvedi
Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
Order on Second Bail Application No. 413504 of 2017
1.Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P. and perused the record.
2.This Criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code has been preferred by the appellant, namely, Mohammad Qamar against the judgment and order dated 5.3.2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.12, Bareilly in Sessions Trial No. 50 of 2012 (State Vs. Mohammad Qamar) convicting and sentencing the appellant for the offence under Section 8/18 of N.D.P.S. Act ten years rigorous imprisonment, with fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine further additional rigorous imprisonment of two years.
3-It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that first bail application of the appellant was rejected on 13.1.2017. Findings recorded by the trial Court for convicting and sentencing the appellant are not sustainable in the eyes of law. Appellant has no criminal history to his credit. The maximum sentence awarded to the appellant is up to ten years and as per custody certificate dated 1.2.2022, appellant has served eight years, three months and seven days in jail out of total sentence of ten years. Lastly, it is submitted that on account of huge pendency of cases before this Court, there is no likelihood of final hearing of this appeal in near future, therefore appellant is entitled for bail.
4- Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail by contending that prosecution has proved it?s case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant but could not dispute that in connection with the present case, the appellant suffered incarceration of the period noticed above.
5-Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, considering gravity of the offence as well as looking to the detention period of the appellant in jail as mentioned above, I find that the appellant has made out a case for grant of bail in the light of order dated 05.10.2021 of the Apex Court in the matter of Saudan Singh Vs. State of U.P. in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 4633 of 2021, 2022 0 Supreme(SC) 221, wherein it has been observed by the Apex Court that there may be even convicts in custody in cases other than life sentence cases and in those cases again the broad parameter of 50 per cent of the actual sentence undergone can be the basis for grant of bail.
6- In view of the above without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, let appellant namely, Mohammad Qamar, who is convicted and sentenced by judgment and order dated 5.3.2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.12, Bareilly in Sessions Trial No. 50 of 2012 (State Vs. Mohammad Qamar) arising out of Case Crime No.605 of 2012, under Section 8/18 of N.D.P.S. Act , police station Ijjatnagar, District Bareilly be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned during pendency of this criminal appeal subject to furnishing undertaking that he will co-operate in hearing of this appeal.
7-The appellant is directed to deposit half of the amount of fine imposed by the trial court within one month from the date he is released on bail and remaining fifty percent amount of fine pursuant to impugned judgment and order shall remain stayed till the decision of the appeal.
8-On acceptance of his bail bonds, the lower Court shall transmit the Photostat copies thereof to this Court for being kept on record of this appeal.
Order on memo of appeal
As per office report dated 18.8.2021, lower Court record has been received.
Office is directed to prepare paper-book.
List this case after six months for final hearing.
Order Date :- 16.8.2022
M. Tarik
