Allowed

Iftikar Khan v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC21 Sept 2022BAIL/35482/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed bail to applicant Iftikar Khan in a drug seizure case under the NDPS Act. Court relied on Union of India vs Shiv Shankar Keshari, noting issues of evidence collection and voluntariness require trial determination, while imposing standard bail conditions.

What did the court decide?

Release on personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions of presence, non-tampering, and specific court appearances.

Iftikar Khan Vs State of U.P. — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 74

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 35482 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Iftikar Khan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kartikeya Saran,Ujjawal Satsangi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.

¶5

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

¶6

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant- Iftikar Khan with a prayer to release him in Case Crime No. 82 of 2021, registered under Sections 8/20 NDPS Act, Police Station Kashi Chowk, District Varanash, during pendency of the trial.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. As per the allegation made in the FIR, alleged recovery of two packets contains 1 Kg and 250 grams of Charas from the head light of the scooter. On information received that narcotics substance put in head light of scooter, police party went there and seized the vehicle No. U.P. 65-AJ 1551. During investigation it is found that alleged scooter belongs to one Meena Devi w/o Santosh Kumar. Police instead of open the head light of the scooter in open space took the vehicle to police station there opened the head light of scooter with help of scooter mechanic. Allegation against the applicant that on 27.09.2021 at about 13:17 hours parked the scooter before Math facts collected from CCTV footage. He has averred that police had seized the vehicle on 29.09.2021 and applicant had parked the vehicle on 27.09.2021, two days vehicle was parked there. Recovery of alleged contraband substance has been made from police station in police custody without independent witnesses. Out of two packets collective one sample has been sent for chemical examination which is against standing order no. 1/1989. Police was required to take independent sample from each bag. No report from Forensic Science Laboratories. Nothing has been recovered from the possession of the applicant. Applicant has criminal history of four cases, which has been explained in par 27 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application. The applicant is languishing in jail since 11.05.2022. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and cooperate in trial. At the stage of consideration of bail it cannot be decided whether offer given to the applicant and his consent

¶8

obtained was voluntary. These are the questions of fact which can be determined only during trial and not at the present stage.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant.

¶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, Iftikar Khan, who is involved in the aforesaid case 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. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶13

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

¶14

(ii) 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. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶15

(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian

¶16

Penal Code.

¶17

(iv) In case the applicant misuse 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 then the Trial Court shall initiate proceedings against him in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶18

(v) 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 absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶19

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

¶20

Order Date :- 21.9.2022 v.k.updh.

¶21

Digitally signed by VINOD KUMAR UPADHYAY Date: 2022.09.30 10:48:00 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Iftikar Khan v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Iftikar Khan 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

Suraj Vs State of U.P.

Iliyas Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ranjeet @ Rocky Vs State of U.P.

Sufiyan Vs State of U.P.

Munnesh Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

Radha @ Radhika Vs State of U.P.