Allahabad High Court
Wahid vs State Of U.P. on 24 May, 2024
Author: Jayant Banerji
Bench: Jayant Banerji
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:95151
Court No. - 93
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 20591 of 2022
Applicant :- Wahid
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Rajive Kumar,Sharad Kumar Srivastava,Vijay Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.
1. Heard Sri Parvish Kumar, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Vijay Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. appearing for the State.
2. This is the third bail application. A compliance affidavit has been filed today by learned A.G.A. for the State, which is taken on record.
3. The petitioner is in jail since 02.11.2019 in respect of Case Crime No. 223 of 2019, under section 18/20 of the Narcotic Drugs Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred as N.D.P.S. Act) & section 420 I.P.C., Police Station- Jhinjhana, District Shamli, wherein charge-sheet was filed, and thereafter, Sessions Trial No. 45 of 2020 has commenced.
4. It is stated by learned A.G.A. that given the provisions of Section 37 (1)(b)(ii) of the N.D.P.S. Act, it cannot beon other occasions certain orders passed in his favour by the Commissioner etc. said that the applicant is not guilty of the offence or that if enlarged on bail, he will not commit the offence again. It is stated by learned A.G.A. that aspect of custody of 'Ganja' is hardly material given the recovery of its enormous quantity from a vehicle which was parked in the hotel of the applicant, from which vehicle, the 'Ganja' was being offloaded into a car.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has pressed the bail application on the strength of a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain Versus State (NCT of Delhi)1. It is contended that the applicant has been incarcerated since 2019. As reflected in the order-sheets that have been filed today by the learned A.G.A., it will take years for the trial to conclude and would be in the teeth of the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Muslim (supra) in case the applicant's application is dismissed.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn attention of this Court to paragraph nos. 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 & 21 of the aforesaid judgment. When the matter was last listed, this Court had directed the learned A.G.A. to obtain instruction from the In-charge prosecution and to obtain certified copy of the order-sheets in each of the three sessions trials to enable this Court to consider whether or not all the accused persons are attending the trials and whether the applicant herein is entitled to bail under the facts and circumstances of the case.
7. The compliance affidavit has been filed today is of Satendra Kumar, who is posted as Sub Inspector, Police Station-Jhinjhana, District Shamli. The order-sheets has been perused by me. It is evident that in Sessions Trial No. 45 of 2020, the co-accused Mintu was granted bail by this Court by means of an order dated 28.09.2020 and since he was not regularly appearing before the Court concerned, and therefore, non-bailable warrant was issued against him but the same was cancelled by an order dated 15.03.2021 passed by the Special Court of N.D.P.S. Act. In Sessions Trial No. 130 of 2019 against the co-accused Kanwar Singh, Kala, Tansir, Mohd. Irfan and Om Prakash, bailable warrant was issued only against Om Prakash but thereafter the same was cancelled by the Sessions Court vide order dated 26.04.2022. It has been mentioned in the aforesaid compliance affidavit that the accused-Saddam is co-operating with trial in Sessions Trial No. 364 of 2020.
8. Considering the facts and circumstances as well as order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Muslim (supra), it is a fit case for bail. This bail application is allowed. Let the applicant-Wahid s/o Saddik be released on bail in Session Trial No. 45 of 2020, arising out of Case Crime No. 223 of 2019, under Section 18/20 of N.D.P.S. Act & Section 420 I.P.C., Police Station-Jhinjhana, District Shamli, on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each of the same amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice :-
1. The applicant shall cooperate with any investigation in the case.
2. The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial;
3. The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any unnecessary adjournment and shall strictly comply with the terms of the bond to be furnished before the court below; and
4. The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.
9. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
10. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted. The court below shall also verify that none of the sureties are sureties for any other accused person in any other case.
11. It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.
Order Date :- 24.5.2024
Vibha
