In this bail application under Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act, the Court granted bail to the accused applicant, Mohd. Arif. The judgment explains that bail does not require a finding of not guilty and notes prima facie non-compliance of Section 50 mandates.
Accused released on bail in C.C. No. 0287/2020 upon furnishing personal bond and two sureties.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 70
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16397 of 2020
Applicant :- Mohd. Arif Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Maheshwari Prasad Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Heard Sri Maheshwari Prasad Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A for the State.
This bail application has been preferred by the accusedapplicant, Mohd. Arif , who is involved in Case Crime No. 0287 of 2020, under Section 18/20 of N.D.P.S Act, Police Station- Chakeri, District- Kanpur Nagar.
Recovery of 1 kg 540 gm charas has been made from the applicant. It is averred in the affidavit in support of the bail application that mandatory provision of Sections 50 and 57 of N.D.P.S Act have not been complied with.
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 03.05.2020 and has no criminal history to his credit.
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.
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 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
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-
Hon'ble Supreme Court his bail shall be effective after the period of short term bail comes to an end.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
Order Date :- 22.9.2020 Rohit
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail be granted under Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act considering prima facie non-compliance of Section 50.
Whether the court can record a finding of not guilty or non-guiltiness at the bail stage.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Union of India vs. Shiv Shankar KeshariExplained¶9
Union of India vs. Shiv Shankar Keshari, (2007) 7 SCC 798 · Who else cites this
6 provisions across 3 enactments
Mohd. Arif
Siddharth
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
