Allowed

Mehraj v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC24 Nov 2021BAIL/9164/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application filed by Mehraj, accused under the NDPS Act. The court found merit in the counsel's submissions regarding false implication and lack of independent forensic evidence. Citing jail overcrowding due to COVID-19, the court granted bail subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties subject to specified conditions.

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

¶1

Court No. - 66

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9164 of 2021 Applicant :- Mehraj Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rahul Kumar Tripathi,Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava,Mrityunjay Dwivedi,Sonu Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶4

Heard Sri Prabha Shankar, learned counsel assisted by Sri Sonu Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.

¶5

A first information report was lodged against the applicant as Case Crime No. 09 of 2021 at Police Station- Dehli Gate, District Aligarh on 04.01.2021 under Section 21/22 of the N.D.P.S. Act.

¶6

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by learned Special Judge/N.D.P.S. Act, Aligarh/Additional Session Judge, Aligarh on 15.01.2021.

¶7

The applicant is in jail since 04.01.2021, pursuant to the said F.I.R.

¶8

Sri Prabha Shankar, learned counsel assisted by Sri Sonu Kumar Tiwari,, learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. False recovery of 1040 gm diazepam powder has been shown from the applicant. The recovered item was planted on the person of the applicant to implicate in the instant case and to show the proficiency of police investigators. The recovery was made in violation of Section 42 read with Section 50 of the NDPS Act. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. No forensic science laboratory report has been submitted which confirms that the substance allegedly recovered is prohibited under the NDPS Act. Learned counsel

¶9

for the applicant contends that apart from the instant case the appilcant is facing prosecution in one more case. Learned counsel for the applicant also explains the criminal history of the applicant. Lastly it is contended by the learned counsel for applicant that the applicant shall not abscond and will fully cooperate in the criminal law proceedings. The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence nor influence the witnesses in any manner.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶11

Courts have taken notice of the overcrowding of jails during the current pandemic situation (Ref.: Suo 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.

¶12

I see merit in the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant and hold that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶13

In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.

¶14

Let the applicant- Mehraj involved in Case Crime No. 09 of 2021 at Police Station- Dehli Gate, District Aligarh under Section 21/22 of the N.D.P.S. Act, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions.

¶15

The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the

¶16

trial.

¶17

The applicant will not influence any witness.

¶18

The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶19

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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶20

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶21

Order Date :- 24.11.2021 Pravin

Mehraj v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mehraj 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

Suhail Vs State of U.P.

Munesh Vs State of U.P.

Shivnath Vs State of U.P. and Another

Triveni Lal Vs State of U.P.

Hardwari Lal Vs State of U.P.

Rajendra Prasad Vs State of U.P.