Allowed

Sarfaraj Ansari v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC24 Jan 2023BAIL/59579/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. regarding offences under IPC and Drugs and Cosmetics Act, the court granted bail to the applicant who alleged false implication and false recovery, exercising its discretion despite opposition from the State.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail with a personal bond and two sureties subject to appearance on fixed dates and non-interference with prosecution evidence and witnesses.

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

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 59579 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Sarfaraj Ansari Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Deleep Kumar Chaudhari,Akhlendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vikas Sahai, learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party.

¶6

The instant bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 253 of 2022, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 274, 275, 34 I.P.C. and 18(a)(i), 18(c), 27 Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, Police Station Kotwali, District Prayagraj during the pendency of the trial.

¶7

It is contended that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. False recovery of 5 packets of plasma was shown from the applicant. There is no independent witness to the recovery. Recovery of Indian currency of Rs.8,100/- has also been shown from the applicant. The said amount belongs to the applicant. It is next contended that co-accused Dilip Shukla and Raghvendra Singh alias Rahul, who were arrested along with the applicant, have been granted bail by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 85 of 2023 (Dilip Shukla v. State of U.P.) and 59391 of 2022 (Raghvendra Singh alias Rahul v. State of U.P.) vide orders dated 11.01.2023 and 18.01.2023 respectively. The applicant claims parity. The applicant is in jail since 22.10.2022 having no criminal history and if he is released on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶9

Having regard to the submissions made but without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶10

Let the applicant- Sarfaraj Ansari, involved in the aforesaid case, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned subject to the conditions that he:

¶11

shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;

¶12

shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; and,

¶13

shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.

¶14

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

¶15

Order Date :- 24.1.2023 SKT/-

¶16

Digitally signed by :- SHIVA KANT TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sarfaraj Ansari v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarfaraj Ansari 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

Amir @ Bhoora @ Amirsayed Vs State of U.P.

Chhote @ Tajali @ Ravi @ Tajuddin Vs State of U.P.

Naseem Vs State of U.P.

Sanjay Vs State of U.P.

Chandrakant Vs State of U.P.

Ashutosh Kumar Sharma Vs State of U.P.