Allowed

Mohammad Faeem v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC6 Oct 2021BAIL/30269/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court Court No. 71 granted bail to Mohammad Faeem accused under the NDPS Act. The court noted findings of false recovery and lack of witness compliance by police. Considering jail overcrowding, Article 21, and legal precedents, the applicant was released on a personal bond with two sureties subject to strict conditions regarding court appearances and absence penalties.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court.

Mohammad Faeem Vs State of U.P. — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 71

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30269 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Mohammad Faeem Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Krishna Kant Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

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

¶6

It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. The applicant has no concern with the present case. It is next contended that contraband substance, i.e. Charas, is said to have been recovered from the possession of the applicant. As a matter of fact no such recovery has been made from the applicant. The police has planted false recovery. It is next contended that factum of recovery has not been supported by any independent or public witness to support the prosecution version. It is also contended that mandatory provisions enumerated under section 50, 52, 52A and 57 of N.D.P.S. Act has not been complied with. Further there is also no compliance of Section 42 and 51 of the N.D.P.S. Act. It is further contended that applicant is languishing in jail since 11.06.2021, having no other criminal history and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial.

¶7

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail prayer of the applicant and submitted that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre-trial stage. However, learned AGA failed to dispute the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶8

Courts have taken notice of overcrowding of jails during the current pandemic situation (Ref: Sue, Motu Writ Petition (c) No. 1/2020 , Contagion of Covid 19 Virus in prisons before the Supreme Court of India). These circumstances shall also be factored in while considering bail applications on behalf of accused persons.

¶9

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, perusing the record of the case, prevailing situation in the State and also that trial is not likely to be heard in near future, nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge and reformative theory of punishment and also considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 , without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a case of bail.

¶10

Let applicant- Mohammad Faheem, involved in Case Crime No. 145 of 2021, under section- 8/20 of N.D.P.S. Act, 1985, Police Station - Tanda, District- Rampur, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court

¶11

concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶12

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he 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.

¶13

(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 under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶14

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial 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.

¶15

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 in accordance with law.

¶16

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

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.

¶20

Order Date :- 6.10.2021 ssm

Mohammad Faeem v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Faeem v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mithun Kashyap Vs State of U.P.

Ishu Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Aakash Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Saheb Vs State of U.P.

Shailendra Pratap Yadav @ S.P.Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Mohd. Javed Ahmad Vs State of U.P.