Allowed

Sahibul Islam and Another v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC19 Oct 2022BAIL/36450/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court granted bail to applicants charged under the N.D.P.S. Act in a ganja recovery case. Drawing on precedents regarding Sections 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act and judicial discretion, the court released the applicants on personal bond and sureties with strict conditions regarding court attendance.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount subject to conditions regarding court appearance.

Sahibul Islam and Another Vs State of U.P. — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 58

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 36450 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Sahibul Islam And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anand Priya Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shiv Shanker Prasad,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. Anand Priya Singh, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. Shravan Kumar Ojha, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the entire material available on record.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed by the applicants-Sahibul Islam and Ahmad Hussain, with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Crime No. 156 of 2022, under Sections 8/20 N.D.P.S. Act, Police StationGhosi, District-Mau, during the pendency of trial.

¶7

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that there is allegation of recovery of 52 kg Ganja from the joint possession of four persons including the applicant. The applicant alleges false implication by the police. At the stage of consideration of bail it cannot be decided whether offer given to the applicant and his consent obtained was voluntary. These are the questions of fact which can be determined only during trial and not at the present stage. In case of prima facie non-compliance of mandatory provision of Section 50 the accused is entitled to be released on bail within the meaning of Section 37 of N.D.P.S. Act.

¶8

It is further submitted that the co-accused, namely, Jumaila Begum and Rajendra Maurya have already been enlarged on bail by the different Coordinate Benches of this Court vide orders dated 4th July, 2022 and 25th July, 2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 25198 of 2022 and 30374 of 2022 respectively. The case of the present applicants are more or less identical to that of the aforesaid co-accused. As such the present applicants are also liable to be enlarged on bail. The applicants have no previous criminal antecedents to their credit except the present one. It is next contended that there is no possibility of the applicants of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and in case, the applicants are enlarged on bail, the applicants shall not misuse the liberty of bail. The applicants are in jail since 11th April,

¶9

¶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

Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicants but he could not dispute the factual submissions as urged by the learned counsel for the applicants.

¶12

Considering the nature of the offence, provision for initiation of cases and release the accused-applicants, material/evidence brought on record, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, as well as the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Versus State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22, let the applicant involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:-

¶13

(i) The applicants 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.

¶14

(ii) The applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their , without sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶15

(iii) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶16

(iv) The applicants 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 applicants are deliberate or without sufÏcient 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.

¶17

It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.

¶18

(Shiv Shanker Prasad, J.)

¶19

Order Date :- 19.10.2022 Sushil/-

¶20

Digitally signed by SUSHIL KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.10.21 09:31:41 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sahibul Islam and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sahibul Islam and Another 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

Amit Lalwani Vs State of U.P.

Shyam Swaroop Alias Sonu and Another Vs State of U.P.

Chhotey Vs State of U.P.

Naushad Vs State of U.P.

Praveen Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Bhagwandas @ Munna Vs State of U.P.