Allowed

Mohd Nihal v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC1 Nov 2023BAIL/31370/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal bail application, the High Court considered the case of Mohd Nihal accused under the NDPS Act for possessing ganja. Citing Supreme Court precedent regarding the limited scope of bail hearings under Section 37, the Court held it fit to grant bail subject to specific conditions, emphasizing the absence of criminal antecedents.

What did the court decide?

Applicant ordered to be released on bail subject to furnishing a personal bond and two sureties and adhering to court attendance conditions.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:208836

¶2

Court No. - 72

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31370 of 2023 Applicant :- Mohd Nihal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Ms. Ifra Islam, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶5

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 0391 of 2023, U/S 8/20 of The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station- Kannauj, District-Kannauj, during the pendency of trial.

¶6

As per the allegations of the FIR, the applicant was apprehended by police on 10.6.2023 and in all, 29.491 kg of ganja was recovered being carried in 5 packets in a bag.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case only on the basis of enmity. Learned counsel has stated that the applicant has nothing to do with the said offence and that there is no compliance of provision of Section 52-A of the N.D.P.S. Act.

¶8

Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. The applicant is languishing in jail since 11.6.2023 having no criminal antecedents. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the recovery of the contraband article is of commercial quantity. However, he has not disputed the fact that the applicant has no criminal antecedents.

¶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

¶11

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.

¶12

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 (supra) 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.

¶13

Let the applicant- Mohd Nihal, who is involved in aforesaid case crime number 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.

¶14

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence.

¶15

(ii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) 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.

¶16

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

¶17

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶18

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶19

Order Date :- 1.11.2023\Shalini

¶20

Digitally signed by :- SHALINI JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mohd Nihal v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd Nihal 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

Radheyshyam @ Bholoo Vs State of U.P. and Another

Majid Vs State of U.P.

Rinkul Goswami Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pramod Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Jagdish Prasad Vs State of U.P.

Vinod Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others