Allahabad High Court
Mohd. Ahmad vs State Of U.P. on 3 May, 2024
Author: Deepak Verma
Bench: Deepak Verma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:79946
Court No. - 75
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 57175 of 2022
Applicant :- Mohd. Ahmad
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Chandra Bhan,Rajeev Pandey,Trilok Nath Dubey,Vijay Kumar Pandey,Vineet Singh Parmar,Vineeta Devi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant-Sanjeev Jatav with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 0129 of 2022 registered under Section 8/20 N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station Kotwali Mandi, District Saharanpur, during pendency of the trial.
3. Submission of counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The recovered contraband substance is below the commercial quantity. The mandatory provisions of N.D.P.S. Act has not been followed and it is not supported by any independent witness. Criminal history of the applicant has been explained in para-25 of the affidavit of bail application. It has also been assured on behalf of the applicant that the applicant is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. It has also been submitted that the applicant is in jail since 18.04.2022.
4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant.
5. 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.
6. 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), 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.
7. Let the applicant, Mohd. Ahmad 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.
i. The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.
ii. The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.
iii. The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.
8. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
Order Date :- 3.5.2024
Meenu Singh
