Allowed

Maroof v. Union of India Thru. Intelligence Officer N.C.B Lko.

Allahabad HC8 Jul 2024/645/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under the NDPS Act, the Court held that the statement of an apprehended co-accused under Section 67 lacks evidentiary value per Tofan Singh. Adopting prior reasoning, the Court allowed bail for the applicant despite multiple pending cases.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail in Case Crime No. 22 of 2019 by executing a bond and furnishing two sureties, subject to conditions of attendance, no commission of similar offences, and no inducement or ta

Maroof Vs Union of India Thru. Intelligence Officer N.C.B… — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:46344

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 645 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Maroof Opposite Party :- Union Of India Thru. Intelligence OfÏcer N.C.B Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- Sajeet Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sajeet Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the N.C.B. and perused the record.

¶7

2 . While arguing the present bail application, the counsel for the applicant argued that on the basis of a search carried out on 30.05.2019 at Lucknow, a person namely Mohd. Islam was arrested and was alleged to be possessing 5.5 KG of Morphine and subsequently a case crime no. 22 of 2019 was registered against him keeping the investigation open, it is argued that during the recording of the statement of the said person, a statement was given under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, wherein it was stated by him that he used to supply the offending goods as apprehended to the applicant as well as two other person, which included one Aleem (Mohd Aleem) @ Sadhu. In short, it is argued that the applicant was linked with the offence in question based upon the said statement recorded from the person who was apprehended with the goods. It is further argued that Aleem (Mohd Aleem) @ Sadhu, whose name also surfaced along with the name of the applicant was enlarged on bail vide a detailed order dated 18.04.2024. In short, it is argued that in all respect, the allegation against the applicant and the evidence is similar to Aleem (Mohd Aleem) @ Sadhu, who has been enlarged on bail, as such,

¶8

the applicant may also be enlarged on bail and as regards the criminal history of the applicant, the same has been duly disclosed in para 7 of the rejoinder afÏdavit, wherein it was stated to the following effect:

¶9

"(a) Case Crime No. 50 of 2023, under Section 8/21 NDPS Act, Police Station Zaidpur, District Barabanki, wherein the applicant is on bail.

¶10

(b) Case Crime No. 533 of 2022, under Section 8/21/29 NDPS Act, Police Station Zaidpur, District Barabanki, wherein the applicant is on bail.

¶11

(c) Case Crime No. 112 of 2023, under Section 8/21/29 NDPS Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Barabanki, wherein the applicant is on bail.

¶12

(d) Case Crime No. 361 of 2021, under Section 8/21/29 NDPS Act, Police Station Zaidpur, District Barabanki, wherein the applicant is on bail.

¶13

(e) Case Crime No. 385 of 2021, under Section 8/21 NDPS Act, Police Station Zaidpur, District Barabanki, wherein the applicant is on bail.

¶14

(f) Case Crime No. 0205 of 2022, under Section 3(1) of U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station Zaidpur, District Barabanki, wherein the applicant is on bail.

¶15

(g) Case Crime No. 177 of 2023, under Section 3(1) of U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station Zaidpur, District Barabanki, wherein the applicant is on bail. "

¶16

3 . The counsel for the applicant further argued that co-accused Aleem (Mohd. Aleem) @ Sadhu also had criminal history of four cases, which fact was also considered by this Court while granting bail.

¶17

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the N.C.B. opposed the bail prayer by arguing that the

¶18

applicant was enlarged on bail in case crime no. 385 of 2021 vide order dated 14.03.2022 passed in Bail Application No. 580 of 2022, thus the applicant has prima facie violated the restriction imposed in the said order, as such, the bail application deserves to be rejected. He further argued that as multiple cases have been registered against the applicant, the involvement of the applicant with similar offences cannot be ruled out, as such, the bail application should be rejected in view of the mandate of Section 37 of the NDPS Act specifically the second condition cannot be satisfied in the case of the applicant.

¶19

5. Considering the submissions made at the Bar, prima facie, in the present case being Case Crime No. 22 of 2019, the applicant was linked with the offence in question based upon the statement of the co-accused from whom, the goods were apprehended given under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. The said statement has no evidentiary value in view of the law as explained in the case of Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamilnadu : AIR 2020 SC 5592. All the other cases in which the applicant has been linked are subsequent to the recovery effected in the present case in the year 2019 and the applicant is on bail in all the said cases. Considering and adopting the reasoning as contained in the bail order dated 18.04.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 5245 of 2023, the applicant is also enlarged on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶20

6. Let the applicant Maroof be released on bail in FIR/ Case Crime No. 22 of 2019, under Sections 8/21/27A/29/60(3) NDPS Act, Police Station N.C.B., Lucknow, District Lucknow, on his furnishing personal bonds and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶21

(a) The applicant shall execute a bond to

¶22

undertake to attend the hearings;

¶23

(b) The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused or suspected of the commission; and

¶24

(c) 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 ofÏcer or tamper with the evidence.

¶25

Order Date :- 8.7.2024 Arun

¶26

Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Maroof v. Union of India Thru. Intelligence Officer N.C.B Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maroof v. Union of India Thru. Intelligence Officer N.C.B Lko.

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Gobare @ Anwar Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Secrtt. Lko.

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

Salamat Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Varis Qureshi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Krishna Bhan Pal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and 4 Others

Badal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others