Allahabad High Court
Muzahid vs State Of U.P. on 2 February, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:18159
Court No. - 72
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 52980 of 2022
Applicant :- Muzahid
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Vashistha,Manish Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi,J.
Heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned AGA for State and perused the record.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant to enlarge him on bail in case crime no.653 of 2022 under Section 8/18 of N.D.P.S., P.S.- Kasganj, District- Kasganj.
The learned counsel for applicant contended that applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. Nothing incriminating has been recovered from the possession of the applicant-accused. However, the recovery of 420 gm heroin was shown from the possession of the applicant, there is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. Mandatory provisions of Sections 50, 52, and 52A of N.D.P.S. Act have not been complied with. It is further contended that while weighing the recovered substance, the police has weighed it along with packing material deliberately to show the quantity higher in order to add to the gravity of the offence. No accurate scientific instruments were used for weighment. It is also contended that at the stage of consideration of bail, it cannot be decided whether offer given to the applicant and his consent obtained was voluntary. It is further contended that co-accused, namely, Azeem @ Bhura, Vikas and Mohad. Kasim whose cases almost identical to that of the applicant-accused have been enlarged on bail by co-ordinate Benches of this Court. Lastly, it is contended that applicant is in jail since 01.10.2022 and he undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty of bail, and there is also no possibility of applicant either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre-trial stage who is involved in supplying contraband, therefore, the applicant does not deserve any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activity. The "reasonable grounds" mentioned in Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of NDPS Act mean something more than prima facie ground. It implies substantial probable causes for believing that accused is not guilty of the offence charged and points to existence of such facts and circumstances which are sufficient to hold that accused is not guilty.
However 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 arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, the ratio of the Apex Court's judgment in the case of Union of India vs. Shiv Shankar Keshari, (2007) 7 SCC 798, 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- Muzahid involved in Case Crime No.653 of 2022 under Section 8/18 of N.D.P.S., P.S.- Kasganj, District- Kasganj be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following condition:-
(i) 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;
(ii) 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;
(iii) 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 :- 2.2.2024
SP/-
