Allowed¶12

Isran v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC3 Dec 2020BAIL/35320/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

NDPS bail granted; Sections 8/15/17 N.D.P.S. Act; Section 37 NDPS Act bail standard via Union of India vs. Shiv Shankar Keshari (2007) 7 SCC 798; Section 50 NDPS compliance raised by defence; Article 21 Constitution; Allahabad High Court; Gautam Chowdhary, J.; CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 35320 of 2020; Case Crime No. 358 of 2020; P.S. Nanauta, District Saharanpur; co-accused parity Jaabir, Taarif, Aasif (Bail Appln. No. 39533 of 2020, bailed 23.11.2020); in jail since 28.8.2020; personal bond and two sureties; ten bail conditions; IPC Ss. 229-A, 174-A; Cr.P.C. Ss. 82, 313.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted: applicant Isran to be released on bail in Case Crime No. 358 of 2020 on furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount, subject to the ten conditions imposed by the Court. ¶12

Isran Vs State of U.P. — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2020)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶12

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant Isran should be released on bail in Case Crime No. 358 of 2020 under Sections 8/15/17 N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station Nanauta, District Saharanpur, during pendency of trial.

¶6

Court's answer

Considering the facts of the case, the ratio of the Apex Court in Union of India vs. Shiv Shankar Keshari, (2007) 7 SCC 798, the larger mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution, the nature of accusations, the nature of supporting evidence, the severity of punishment, the character and peculiar circumstances of the accused, the reasonable possibility of securing his presence at trial, apprehension of witness tampering, and the larger interest of the public/State, but without expressing any opinion on the merits, the Court found it a fit case for grant of bail.

¶11

Ratio / Principle

The applicant was ordered to be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to ten enumerated conditions (including non-tampering with prosecution evidence, sincere cooperation in trial, abstention from criminal activity, presence before the trial court on fixed dates, and filing/verification of a computer-generated copy of the order); breach of any condition to be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶12

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 35320 of 2020 (High Court Allahabad, Gautam Chowdhary, J., order dated 3.12.2020): Bail granted to applicant Isran in Case Crime No. 358 of 2020 under Sections 8/15/17 N.D.P.S. Act, P.S. Nanauta, District Saharanpur, during pendency of trial. Relying on the ratio of Union of India vs. Shiv Shankar Keshari, (2007) 7 SCC 798 (that a Section 37 bail consideration is not an acquittal exercise) and the larger mandate of Article 21, and weighing nature of accusations, evidence, punishment severity, accused's character, attendance prospects, witness-tampering apprehension and public interest, the Court held it a fit case for bail without expressing opinion on merits. Release ordered on personal bond and two reliable sureties, with ten conditions including non-tampering, cooperation in trial, personal presence at specified stages, and verification of computer-generated order copy; breach to ground cancellation. Counsel had urged non-compliance of Section 50 NDPS safeguards, absence of independent witnesses to recovery, false implication, and parity with co-accused Jaabir, Taarif and Aasif bailed on 23.11.2020 (Bail Appln. No. 39533 of 2020); applicant in custody since 28.8.2020.

¶1

Court No. - 91

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 35320 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Isran Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Irfan Chaudhary,Shazia Afzal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material brought on record.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant Isran with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 358 of 2020, under Sections 8/15/17 N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station- Nanauta, District- Saharanpur during pendency of trial.

¶7

Submission of counsel for the applicant is that the amount of the contraband which has been allegedly recovered from the possession of the accused is not supported by any independent witness. Other submissions showing the falsity of the prosecution story with regard to the recovery have also been made. Further contention is that the statutory provisions of Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 have not been complied with in the right manner. The counsel has also tried to demonstrate the circumstances indicating the false implication of the applicant. It has also been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. It has also been submitted that the applicant is in jail since 28.8.2020. Lastly contended that co-accused of this case Jaabir, Taarif and Aasif have been released on bail by this Bench on 23.11.2020 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 39533 of 2020.

¶8

Learned AGA for the State has opposed the prayer for bail.

¶9

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

¶10

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.

¶11

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.

¶12

Let the aforesaid 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-

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

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;

¶17

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 Penal Code.

¶18

The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing

¶19

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.

¶20

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.

¶21

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.In case court below is functioning normally, this condition will not apply and applicant shall be enlarged on bail on execution of bail bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the court below.

¶22

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

¶23

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.

¶24

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

¶25

Order Date :- 3.12.2020

¶26

RPD

Isran v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Isran 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

Nurain Vs State of U.P.

Saddam Vs State of U.P.

Ahasan and Another Vs State of U.P.

Triveni Vs State of U.P.

Fareed Vs State of U.P.

Rinku Rajbhar Vs State of U.P.