Allowed

Musarraf v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC11 Aug 2023BAIL/24480/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application regarding a drug possession case, the Allahabad High Court granted bail. The court noted the contraband quantity was below commercial limits, no independent witness existed for recovery, and criminal history was not a sole bar to bail. The applicant was released on personal and surety bonds with strict conditions.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties, subject to conditions including appearance on fixed dates and monthly reporting.

Musarraf Vs State of U.P. — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:163432

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24480 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Musarraf Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Syed Hasan Shaukat Abidi,Diwakar Shukla,Syed Abbas Shaukat Abidi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶6

Rejoinder affidavit to the counter affidavit filed by the State is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State-opposite party and perused the record.

¶8

The instant bail application, under Section 439 Cr.P.C., has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 294 of 2023, under Sections 8/22 of N.D.P.S. Act, 1985, Police Station- Kotwali, District- Fatehpur during the pendency of trial.

¶9

Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. False recovery of 104 gm. smack has been shown from the applicant. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. The alleged contraband is below the commercial quantity. The mandatory provisions of N.D.P.S. Act have not been complied with. There is no F.S.L. report to establish that the substance recovered is smack. The criminal history of the applicant has been explained in para no. 21 of the bail application and para no. 12 of rejoinder affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 27.04.2023. In case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶10

Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that the applicant has criminal antecedents.

¶11

After hearing the rival contentions, this Court prima facie finds that the alleged contraband is below commercial quantity and there is no independent witness to the alleged recovery.

¶12

In so far as criminal antecedents of the applicant is concerned, it is not the case of the State that applicant might tamper with or otherwise adversely influence the investigation, or that he might intimidate witnesses before or during the trial. The State has also not placed any material that applicant in past attempted to evade the process of law. In the opinion of this Court if the accused is otherwise found to be entitled to bail, he cannot be denied bail only on the ground of criminal history, no exceptional circumstances on the basis of criminal antecedents have been shown to deny bail to accused, hence, the Court does not feel it proper to deny bail to the

¶13

applicant just on the ground that he had criminal antecedent.

¶14

In Ash Mohammad Vs. Shiv Raj Singh, (2012) 9 SCC 446 , the Apex Court in para 30 has observed:-

¶15

"We may hasten to add that when we state that the accused is a history-sheeter we may not be understood to have said that a history-sheeter is never entitled to bail. But, it is a significant factor to be taken note of regard being had to the nature of crime in respect of which he has been booked."

¶16

In the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2020 (11) SCC 648, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused may itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail.

¶17

Further, the applicant has remained confined for more than three months, there is no hope of early conclusion of trial and without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶18

Let the applicant- Musarraf , involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties (in view of criminal history) each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to conditions that he:

¶19

(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;

¶20

(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

¶21

(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses; and,

¶22

(iv) shall not leave district without the leave of the trial court.

¶23

(v) shall appear on 15th of every month at the Police Station concerned.

¶24

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶25

Order Date :- 11.8.2023

¶26

Sachin Mishra

¶27

Digitally signed by :- SACHIN MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Musarraf v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Musarraf 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

Rohitash Kumar Gangwar Vs State of U.P.

Ekman Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Munil Pasi Vs State of U.P.

Rajveer Vs State of U.P.

Sabir @ Akram Vs State of U.P.

Raman Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others