Allowed

Javed v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC19 Feb 2021BAIL/7941/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal bail application, the Allahabad High Court granted bail to the applicant, Javed, charged under Sections 21 and 22 of the N.D.P.S Act for possessing 107 grams of Alprazolam. The court relied on Union of India Vs. Shiv Shankar Keshari regarding the limited purpose of bail applications under Section 37 of the Act.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail by executing personal bond and furnishing two sureties.

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

¶1

Court No. - 90

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7941 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Javed Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ujjawal Satsangi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.

¶5

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

¶6

By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in Case Crime No.0618 of 2020, under Section 21 and 22 of N.D.P.S.Act, Police Station Kotwali, district Mathura and is in jail since 09.12.2020, is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

¶7

The first information report of this incident was lodged by the police against the applicant. The applicant was arrested on the spot.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the only allegation against the applicant is that 107 gms. Alprazolam was recovered from the possession of the applicant, which is slightly above the commercial quantity. He further submitted that there has been no compliance of Section 50 of N.D.P.S. Act. He has lastly submitted that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶9

The prayer for bail has been vehemently opposed by learned A.G.A.

¶10

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.

¶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 applicant, Javed be released on bail on his executing personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction

¶13

of the court concerned in Case Crime No.0618 of 2020, under Sections 21 and 22 N.D.P.S.Act, Police Station Kotwali, district Mathura subject to the following conditions:-

¶14

The applicant will continue to attend and co-operate in the trial pending before the court concerned on the date fixed after release.

¶15

He will not tamper with the witnesses.

¶16

He will not indulge in any illegal activities during the bail period.It is further directed that the identity, status and residence proof of the sureties be verified by the authorities concerned before they are accepted.

¶17

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

¶18

It is further directed that the identity, status and residence proof of the sureties be verified by the authorities concerned before they are accepted.

¶19

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by learned counsel for the applicant along with a self attested identity proof of the said persons (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number (s) to which the said Aadhar Card is linked before the concerned Court/Authority/Official.

¶20

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.

¶21

Order Date :- 19.2.2021

¶22

R./

Javed v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Javed 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

Smt.Nirmala Devi Vs State of U.P.

Aszad and Another Vs State of U.P.

Arvind Vs State of U.P.

Rohtash @ Devendra @ Taunta Vs State of U.P.

Lal Bahadur Shukla Vs State of U.P.

Arun Katheriya Vs State of U.P.