Shakeel Ahmed Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:14438

Court No. - 14

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1548 of 2024 Applicant :- Shakeel Ahmed Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Achal Singh Yadav,Anil Kumar Yadav,Nilesh Kumar Rao Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶6

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

¶7

It is alleged in the prosecution case that from the personal search of the applicant, 160 gram morphine has been seized.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the recovered quantity is below commercial. There is no compliance of Section 50 of NDPS Act. He has explained his criminal history of two cases in the supplementary affidavit. The applicant is languishing in jail since 04.01.2024.

¶9

It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶11

On due consideration to the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 04.01.2024; he has explained his criminal history in the supplementary affidavit; the recovered quantity is below commercial, coupled with the fact that prima facie there appears to be non-compliance of Section 50 NDPS Act and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the

¶12

case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶13

Let the applicant, Shakeel Ahmed, involved in Case Crime/FIR No. 7/2024, under Sections 8/21 NDPS Act, Police Station - Zaidpur, District - Barabanki, 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 with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶14

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶15

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶16

(iii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any 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 or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶17

(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶18

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶19

(vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶20

Order Date :- 19.2.2024/R.C.

¶21

Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shakeel Ahmed v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shakeel Ahmed v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Pagula Devi @ Sukhraji Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Ashok Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home

Vidyasagar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Imamul Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 Others

Rahul Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Others

Sunil Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko