Allowed

Savej Alias Afridi v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC22 May 2023BAIL/7064/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court allowed bail applications for applicants in NDPS case alleging false implication and non-compliance with Section 50 recovery protocols. Granted bail subject to personal bond, two local heavy sureties, and bail conditions prohibiting evidence tampering and witness influence.

What did the court decide?

Applicants released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two local heavy sureties each subject to specific conditions.

Savej Alias Afridi Vs State of U.P. — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:112990

¶2

Court No. - 79

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7064 of 2023 Applicant :- Savej Alias Afridi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sandeep Kumar Srivastava,Amit Daga Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

With

¶5

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5120 of 2023 Applicant :- Jeesan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Thakur Prasad Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.

¶7

Since this matter relates to the same Crime Number, both these applications have been heard together and are being decided by a common order.

¶8

Rejoinder Affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicants is taken on record.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶10

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicants in Case Crime No. 06 of 2023, registered under Sections 8/21/22 of NDPS Act, Police Station Majhola, District Moradabad with the prayer to enlarge the applicants on bail.

¶11

It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicants that applicants are innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that Mandatory provision of Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act were not complied with regard to the recovery of the alleged substance. It is further submitted that there is no public witness of such recovery while the place of recovery is Delhi-Lucknow National Highway-24 which demonstrate that entire case of prosecution has been cooked up. In case of prima facie non-compliance of mandatory provision of Section 50 the accused are entitled to be released on bail

¶12

within the meaning of section 37 of N.D.P.S. Act. It is further submitted that co-accused namely, Jitendra and Azeem have identical role to that of present applicants has already been granted bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 10.05.2023 and 03.04.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 20975 of 2023 and 7705 of 2023. Lastly it is submitted that applicants are languishing in jail since 04.01.2023 and 03.05.2020 respectively having no criminal history and that in case they are released on bail, they will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.

¶13

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.

¶14

Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the prayer for grant of bail but he could not dispute the aforesaid aspect of the matter.

¶15

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of evidence and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicants has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed .

¶16

Let the applicants Savej Alias Afridi and Jeesan in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two local heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned subject to the following conditions:

¶17

(1). The applicants will not tamper with the prosecution evidence during the trial.

¶18

(2). The applicants will not influence any witness.

¶19

(3). The applicants will appear before the trial Court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶20

(4). The applicants shall not directly or indirectly make any

¶21

inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶22

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

¶23

Order Date :- 22.5.2023 Gaurav

¶24

Digitally signed by :- GAURAV PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Savej Alias Afridi v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Savej Alias Afridi 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

Vaibhab Singh Vs State of U.P.

Avneesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Akash Bihari Vs State of U.P.

Rizwan and Another Vs State of U.P.

Aas Mohammad Vs State of U.P.

Indrajeet Narayan Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others