Allowed

Irfan v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC22 Mar 2022BAIL/52729/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A judge allowed bail to the applicant charged under sections 8/20 of the N.D.P.S. Act for possession of charas exceeding commercial quantity. Despite the serious charge and criminal history, bail was granted due to lack of forensic evidence and reliance on Apex Court dicta regarding Article 21.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions including appearing in trial and not tampering with witnesses.

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

¶1

Court No. - 90

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 52729 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Irfan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Hemendra Pratap Singh,Anshu Singh 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 Irfan is involved in Case Crime No.420 of 2021, under Section 8/20 of N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station Rasoolpur, District- Firozabad.

¶7

It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that as per allegation 1 kg 250 gms charas has been recovered from the possession of the applicant. The allegation against the applicant is false. Nothing has been recovered from him. There is no independent witness of the alleged incident. As the applicant was having criminal history of two cases under section 302 I.P.C. so he has been falsely implicated by the police in the present case. In both the cases, which are of the year 2006 and 2010, respectively he has been acquitted. The copies of the judgements have been attached as annexures- 1 and 2. The applicant is languishing in jail since 21.10.2021 and in case he is enlarged on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail application and argued that 1 kg 250 gms of charas has been recovered from the possession of the applicant, which is above the commercial quantity.

¶9

From perusal of the record, it is clear that 1 kg 250 gms of charas has been recovered from the possession of the applicant, which is above the commercial quantity but no chemical examination report has been produced to confirm that the recovered material is contra band. The applicant has criminal history of two cases and in both the cases, he has been acquitted.

¶10

Having heard the submissions of learned counsel of both the parties, 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 Court in

¶11

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, Irfan , who is involved in aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two heavy 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 in the trial pending before the court concerned on the dates fixed after release.

¶14

He will not tamper with the witnesses.

¶15

He will not indulge himself 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 of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶19

Order Date :- 22.3.2022 Radhika

¶20

Digitally signed by RADHIKA VISHWAKARMA Date: 2022.03.24 17:47:26 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Irfan v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Irfan 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

Sunil Kumar Tripathi @ Krishna Chandra Tripathi Vs State of U.P.

Karan Singh @ Dalla Vs State of U.P.

Aurangjeb @ Golu Vs State of U.P.

Chetan Jaiswal Vs State of U.P.

Kaptan Vs State of U.P.

Kuldeep Vs State of U.P.