Allowed

Mohd. Jabir v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC14 Oct 2022/11258/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the bail application of Mohd. Jabir in an NDPS case involving recovery of heroin below commercial quantity. The Court emphasized non-compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act and lack of independent witnesses as factors for granting bail subject to rigorous conditions.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted subject to personal bond, two sureties, and conditions prohibiting tampering with evidence, attendance at inquiry, and facing proceedings for absconding.

Mohd. Jabir Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 15

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11258 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Mohd. Jabir Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

¶4

Counsel for Applicant :- Atulesh Kr. Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ajay Kumar Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

This application has been filed with a prayer to release the applicant on bail during the trial in Case Crime no.209 of 2022, under Section 8/21 N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station Kotwali Ayodhya, District Ayodhya.

¶9

As per the version of the first information report, 20 gm contraband substance i.e. Heroin is said to be recovered from the possession of the applicant.

¶10

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. He further submits that as per the version of FIR, 20 gm contraband substance (heroin) has been recovered from the possession of the applicant which is below than the commercial quantity. There is non-compliance of Section 50 N.D.P.S. Act. In support of his contention, learned counsel has relied upon the case of Arif Khan @ Agha Khan vs. State of Uttarakhand reported in (2018) 18 SCC 380 in which Apex Court has held that Section 50 of the NDPS Act is mandatorily required with regard to search and seizure. There is no independent public witness account of the alleged recovery. He further added that there is no any cogent piece of evidence to connect the applicant in the instant matter. He further submits that the applicant has six cases previous criminal antecedent of the applicant, which has been explained in supplementary affidavit. He next submits that the applicant is law abiding citizen and is languishing in jail since 09.06.2022. In case, he is granted bail, he will not

¶11

misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate in the investigation.

¶12

Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and submits that 20 contraband substance has been recovered from the possession of the applicant but there are six cases criminal antecedent of the applicant which has been explained in the supplementary affidavit and as such he is involved in committing the aforesaid crime.

¶13

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of record, it is evident that contraband substance which was recovered from the possession of the applicant is below than the commercial quantity; there is no independent public eye witness account; Section 50 of NDPS Act has not been complied with; further he has explained six cases previous criminal history in the supplementary affidavit and the applicant is languishing in jail since 09.06.2022.

¶14

Thus, considering the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a case of bail.

¶15

Let the applicant- Mohd. Jabir involved in the aforementioned crime be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:-

¶16

(1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial;

¶17

(2) 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. He 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;

¶18

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

¶19

case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.; and

¶20

(4) 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, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶21

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶22

It is clarified that the observations 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 merits of the case.

¶23

Order Date :- 14.10.2022 A.Kr*

¶24

Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR Date: 2022.10.16 21:14:40 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mohd. Jabir v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Jabir v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

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

Manoj Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru Secy. Home Lucknow

Basudev Goswami Vs State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Home Lko.

Raj Kumar Kushwaha @ Aryan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Ikram Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home Lucknow

Mohd. Nadeem Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Arun Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.