Allahabad High Court
Shahnawaz @ Shanu vs State Of U.P. on 14 May, 2024
Author: Krishan Pahal
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:87257
Court No. - 76
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 18664 of 2024
Applicant :- Shahnawaz @ Shanu
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Amrita Kashyap,Shams Uz Zaman
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.
2. Heard Ms. Amrita Kashyap, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Anjani Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 102 of 2024, U/S 8/20 of The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station- Mainather, District - Moradabad, during the pendency of trial.
4. As per the allegations of the FIR, the applicant was arrested by police on 28.3.2024 at about 10.05 pm, whereby 1.1 kg of charas is stated to have been recovered.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and to victimize him. Learned counsel has stated that the said contraband is below commercial quantity and there is no compliance of mandatory provision of Section 52-A of the N.D.P.S. Act. There is no chemical analyst's report to corroborate the prosecution version that the said contraband is charas. The allegations have been inflated just to make the contraband fall within the category of commercial quantity.
6. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. The applicant is languishing in jail since 29.3.2024. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
7. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the recovery of the contraband article is of commercial quantity. He has also stated that there is a criminal history of three more cases assigned to the applicant.
8. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that he has explained the criminal history of the applicant. One is under the Gangsters Act and one is under the Cow Slaughter Act in which he is on bail. Another case is of assault in which he is yet to apply for bail. In support of his submission, learned counsel has placed much reliance upon the judgement of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and Another, 2020 (11) SCC 648, wherein the Apex Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail, if otherwise his case for bail is made out.
9. 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.
10. 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 vs. Shiv Shankar Keshari (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.
11. Let the applicant- Shahnawaz @ Shanu, who is involved in aforesaid case crime number 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 evidence.
(ii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.
12. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
13. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.
Order Date :- 14.5.2024
Shalini
(Justice Krishan Pahal)
