Salman Vs State of U.P.

Court No. - 66

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 21544 of 2020

Applicant :- Salman Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Aslam Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.

¶5

This application has been entertained without an affidavit on account of the extraordinary contingency created by the Covid19 pandemic where the travel is restricted. This Court notices the fact that there is a declaration by the applicant that he will file an affidavit. This order is being passed, therefore, subject to a certain conditions in this regard.

¶6

This is an application for bail on behalf of the applicant, Salman in connection with Case Crime No. 249 of 2020, under Section 8/20 of NDPS Act, Police Station Fatehpur, District Saharanpur.

¶7

Heard Mr. Mohd. Aslam, learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. appearing for the State.

¶8

The submission of the learned Counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present crime by the police in order to show good work about crime control. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the contraband recovered is Charas weighing 220gms, which is far below the commercial quantity. It is also submitted that the arrest is from a busy public place, but no public witness of the recovery has been associated. It is next argued that it is a case of prior disclosure by the applicant about possession of a narcotic, but there is no compliance of Section 50 NDPS Act; the recovery being from the applicant's possession. It is also pointed out by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no

¶9

criminal history and the applicant is in jail since 13.05.2020.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but does not dispute the fact that the applicant has no criminal history.

¶11

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations, the gravity of the offence, the severity of punishment, the evidence appearing in the case, in particular, the fact that the recovered narcotic is below the commercial quantity, the fact that there is no public witness associated with the recovery, though the recovery was from a busy public place, the fact that there is prima facie no compliance of Section 50 NDPS Act, the fact that the applicant has no criminal history, but without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court, finds it to be a fit case for bail.

¶12

The bail application, accordingly, stands allowed .

¶13

Let the applicant, Salman in connection with Case Crime No. 249 of 2020, under Section 8/20 of NDPS Act, Police Station Fatehpur, District Saharanpur, be released on bail on executing his personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:

¶14

i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.

¶15

ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses.

¶16

iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the Trial Court.

¶17

iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission.

¶18

v) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶19

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

¶20

(vii) The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.

¶21

(viii) 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.

¶22

In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the prosecution would be free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this Court.

¶23

It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. It is further clarified that the Trial Court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led, unaffected by anything said in this order.

¶24

It is made clear that in case, an affidavit in support of this application duly sworn is not filed, as declared, within 15 days of resumption of swearing of affidavits, the bail granted to the applicant shall be cancelled.

¶25

Order Date :- 3.9.2020 NSC

Salman v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Salman 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Tanu Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Abrar and Another Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Amir Vs State of U.P.

Lallu Paswan Vs State of U.P.

Mohkam @ Maukam Yadav and Another Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Sahil (Minor) and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others