Allowed¶12

Mazid Khan v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC13 Apr 2022BAIL/2355/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

NDPS Act bail; diazepam recovery 680 gms.; parity with co-accused already on bail; Section 50 N.D.P.S. Act compliance; no independent witness; criminal history / repeat offence objection; Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. (2018) 2 SCC 22; Article 21 Constitution of India; personal bond and two sureties; Allahabad High Court; Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 2355 of 2022; Mazid Khan; Agra; Police Station Etmadaula.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to applicant Mazid Khan on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, subject to conditions (attendance and cooperation at trial, no tampering with witnesses, no illegal activities during bail period). ¶12

Mazid Khan Vs State of U.P. — Allahabad HC (2022) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶12

Issue for consideration

Whether the accused-applicant Mazid Khan, involved in Case Crime No. 836 of 2021 under Sections 8/22 N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station Etmadaula, District Agra, should be released on bail. +1 more

¶7

Court's answer

The Court found it to be a case of bail, expressly without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.

¶11

Ratio / Principle

Applicant Mazid Khan was ordered to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, subject to conditions of attending and cooperating with trial, not tampering with witnesses, and not indulging in illegal activities; breach of conditions permits the court below to cancel bail.

¶12

Key takeaways

Observations made in the order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed as any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.obiter¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Sadhna Rani (Thakur), J.) allowed Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 2355 of 2022 and enlarged applicant Mazid Khan on bail in Case Crime No. 836 of 2021, Police Station Etmadaula, District Agra, under Sections 8/22 N.D.P.S. Act, involving alleged recovery of 680 gms. of diazepam. Defence urged parity with co-accused Umesh Pachori (510 gms.) and Dhruv Kumar (630 gms.), already granted bail by coordinate benches, absence of independent witness, and non-compliance with Section 50 N.D.P.S. Act; the State opposed citing the applicant's criminal history of two cases and repeat offence. Relying on the dictum in Dataram Singh v. State of U.P., (2018) 2 SCC 22, and the larger mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and considering seriousness of charge, severity of punishment, nature of supporting evidence and reformative theory, bail was granted on a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, expressly without expressing any opinion on merits, with conditions as to trial attendance, non-tampering with witnesses and abstention from illegal activities.

¶1

Court No. - 90

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2355 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Mazid Khan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Singh,Som Veer Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur),J.

¶5

Heard learned Counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶6

The accused applicant, Mazid Khan is involved in Case Crime No. 836 of 2021, under Section 8/22 N.D.P.S. Act, registered at Police Station Etmadaula, District Agra.

¶7

It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that it is alleged that 680 gms. of diazepam has been recovered from the accused by the police. Three persons, Umesh Pachori, Dhruv Kumar and the present accused were apprehended by the police. From Umesh 510 gms. and from Dhruv Kumar 630 gms. of diazepam had been recovered and both these persons have been granted bail by the coordinate benches of this Court. There is no independent witness of the incident. Section 50 of N.D.P.S. Act has not been complied with. He has criminal history of two cases; in the first case under section of N.D.P.S. Act he is on bail and in the second case of gambling, he has not been bailed out till date. He is languishing in jail since 19.12.2021, hence, the prayer for bail is made.

¶8

Per contra, the bail application has been opposed by the learned A.G.A. and it is submitted that the present accused is having criminal history of two cases though in the previous case of N.C.B. he has been released on bail but this is repeated offence of the accused.

¶9

There is no independent witness of the incident. The bail orders of the co-accused Umesh Pachori and Dhruv Kumar have been placed before the court.

¶10

Having heard the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, considering the seriousness of the charge and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the

¶11

Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment, and larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 2 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a case of bail.

¶12

Let the applicant - Mazid Khan, who is involved in aforesaid 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 subject to following conditions:-

¶13

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

¶14

He will not tamper with the witnesses.

¶15

He will not indulge in any illegal activities during the bail period.

¶16

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.

¶17

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.

¶18

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶19

Order Date :- 13.4.2022 gp

¶20

Digitally signed by GANESH PRAKASH Date: 2022.04.13 18:47:03 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mazid Khan v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mazid Khan v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Om Prakash Jangid Vs State of U.P.

Akhilesh @ Bablu Vs State of U.P.

Vipin Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Manoj Pandey Vs State of U.P.

Sajid Vs state of u.p. and 3 Others

Mustaqeem Vs State of U.P.