Allowed

Mustkeem Taumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC17 Sept 2021BAIL/5322/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to Mustkeem Taumar in a narcotics case involving seizure of prohibited substances. The court held that the bail application does not require a finding of innocence, just reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty, citing Union of India vs. Shiv Shankar Keshari.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail with personal bond and heavy sureties by furnishing conditions for presence at trial.

Mustkeem Taumar Vs State of U.P. — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 71

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5322 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Mustkeem Taumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Hemant Sharma,Ashok Kumar Singh,Prem Prakash Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Azad Singh, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶6

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive, on the basis of false and planted recovery of pentazocine injection IP 1400 gram; 16680 gram tramadole hydrochloride and 264 gram alprazoma recovered from scooty and motorcycle, which were in possession of the applicant and another and there is no public witness of the alleged recovery. It is further contended that mandatory provisions of Section 50 of N.D.P.S. Act has 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 by 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 noncompliance 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 has no criminal history. It is also submitted that the applicant is jail since 6.12.2021 and he undertakes that he will not misuse liberty, if granted.

¶7

Learned counsel for the department as well as learned A.G.A. have opposed the prayer for bail by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre-trial stage who is involved in supplying contraband, therefore, the applicant does not deserve any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activity. The "reasonable grounds" mentioned in Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of NDPS Act mean something more than prima facie ground. It implies substantial probable causes for believing that accused is not guilty of the offence charged and points to existence of such facts and circumstances which are sufficient to hold that accused is not guilty.

¶8

However the Apex Court in the Case of Union of India vs. Shiv Shankar Keshari, (2007) 7 SCC 798 has held that the

¶9

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.

¶10

Considering the facts of the case and keeping in mind the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, 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.

¶11

Let the applicant - Mustkeem Taumar involved in Case Crime No. 537 of 2020, under Section 18-C, 18-A, 27, 28, 32 Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and 8/22 N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station Garmukteshwar, District Hapur be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following condition:-

¶12

(i) 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;

¶13

(ii) 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.

¶14

(iii) 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.

¶15

It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.

¶16

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of 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 :- 17.9.2021 Digamber

Mustkeem Taumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mustkeem Taumar 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

Shaukat Vs State of U.P.

Usman Khan Vs State of U.P.

Haneef Vs State of U.P.

Firoz Shamshad Khan Vs State of U.P.

Gulam Nabi Vs State of U.P.

Naiyar Alam Vs State of U.P.