Allahabad High Court
Riyaz Khan vs State Of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. ... on 8 April, 2025
Author: Manish Mathur
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:19586
Court No. - 13
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2938 of 2025
Applicant :- Riyaz Khan
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko.
Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Jabir,Tribhuwan Agnihotri
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and perused the record.
2. First bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.40 of 2025 under Section 8/21 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as NDPS Act), registered at P.S.Katra Bazar, District Gonda.
3. As per contents of F.I.R., the incident is said to have taken place on 02.03.2025 when a police patrol party acting upon a tip off provided by police informer is said to have apprehended applicant along with co-accused with illegal narcotics in their possession.
4. It has been submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him and that there is no independent witness of recovery of 14 grams of smack allegedly made from applicant. It has also been submitted that substantive procedure as per Section 50 of NDPS Act has not been followed. Applicant is under incarceration since 02.03.2025 without any previous criminal history.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed bail application with submission that a bare perusal of F.I.R. will clearly indicate the aspect that applicant along with co-accused were apprehended with illegal narcotics in their possession. It is, however, admitted that applicant does not have any previous criminal history.
6. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 has specifically held that bail is to be a norm and an under-trial is not required to be in jail for ever pending trial. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment are as under :-
"21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty."
"27. This Court, time and again, has stated that bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. It has also observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution."
7. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of material on record, prima facie, and subject to further evidence being led in trial, it appears that there is no independent witness with regard to recovery allegedly made from applicant. Violation of Section 50 of NDPS Act would also be a subject matter of evidence during course of trial; the recovered quantity is below commercial and applicant is under incarceration since 02.03.2025 without any previous criminal history. As such, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.
8. Accordingly bail application is allowed.
9. Let applicant Riyaz Khan involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his/her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he/she shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.
(ii) 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/her under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his/her 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/her, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) 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, 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/her in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 8.4.2025
kvg/-
