Hasmuddin @ Hasmukh Vs State of U.P.

Court No. - 76

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14713 of 2020

Applicant :- Hasmuddin @ Hasmukh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

This bail application is being decided as per the guidelines dated 19.7.2020 of Hon'ble the Chief Justice, through video conferencing.

¶6

Despite time granted to the learned AGA on 18.6.2020, no counter affidavit has been filed by him till date.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA through Video Conferencing.

¶8

This bail application has been preferred by the accusedapplicant, Hasmuddin @ Hasmukh, who is involved in Case Crime No. 63 of 2020, under Section 8/22 N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station- Kotwali, DistrictGhaziabad.

¶9

Recovery of 350 gm. of Alprazolam is alleged to have been recovered from the applicant. It is averred in the affidavit in support of the bail application that mandatory provision of Section 50 of N.D.P.S Act has not been complied with.

¶10

At the stage of consideration of bail it cannot be decided whether offer given to the applicant and his consent obtained was voluntary. These are the questions of fact which can be determined only during trial and not at the present stage. In case of prima facie non-compliance of mandatory provision of Section 50 the accused is entitled to be released on bail within the meaning of Section 37 of N.D.P.S. Act. The applicant is in jail since 22.01.2020.

¶11

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

¶12

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.

¶13

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, (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 accusedapplicant, 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.

¶14

Let applicant be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions-

¶15

The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶16

The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶17

The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶18

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;

¶19

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

¶20

Penal Code.

¶21

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.

¶22

In case the applicant has been enlarged on short term bail as per the order of committee constituted under the orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court his bail shall be effective after the period of short term bail comes to an end.

¶23

The applicant shall be enlarged on bail on execution of personal bond without sureties till normal functioning of the courts is restored. The accused will furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the court below within a month after normal functioning of the courts are restored.

¶24

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.

¶25

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶26

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶27

Order Date :- 22.7.2020 Ruchi Agrahari

Hasmuddin @ Hasmukh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hasmuddin @ Hasmukh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mukesh Vs State of U.P.

Vijay Verma @ Natu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Irshad Vs State of U.P.

Mukesh Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dilawar Vs State of U.P.

Pradeep Sharma Vs State of U.P.