Allahabad High Court
Naushad vs State Of U.P. on 15 September, 2022
Bench: Deepak Verma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 74
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29480 of 2022
Applicant :- Naushad
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Raj Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 218 of 2022, under Sections 21/22 on N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station- Kotwali Nagar, District- Bulandshahr, during pendency of trial.
It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is next contended that the substance alleged to have been recovered from the possession of the applicant is stated to be 'Alprazolam'. Upon measuring the same, the quantity of alprazolam is said to be 97.5 grams. The recovery of 97.5 gram of alprazolam has been falsely planted on the applicant, which is below the commercial quantity. The commercial quantity of alphrazolam is 100 gram. There is no independent witness of the alleged recovery. It is also argued that the statutory provisions of Sections 50 and 52 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 have not been complied with in the right manner. There is no previous criminal history of the applicant, after implication in the present case the applicant has been roped in one case. Applicant is languishing in jail since 23.3.2022 There is no likelihood of fleeing from course of justice or tampering with evidence. Hence, bail, during trial, has been prayed for.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant.
The Apex Court in the Case of Union of India vs. Shiv Shankar Keshari, (2007) 7 SCC 798 has held that the court while considering the application for bail with reference to Section 37 of the Act is not called upon to record a finding of not guilty. It is for the limited purpose essentially confined to the question of releasing the accused on bail that the court is called upon to see if there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and records its satisfaction about the existence of such grounds. But the court has not to consider the matter as if it is pronouncing a judgment of acquittal and recording a finding of not guilty.
Considering the facts of the case and keeping in mind, the ratio of the Apex Court's judgment in the case of Union of India (supra), 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.
Let the applicant, Naushad be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.
1. The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.
2. The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.
3. 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.
Order Date :- 15.9.2022
S.K.
