Atiq vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:118395

Court No. - 65

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16150 of 2025

Applicant :- Atiq Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Syed Faiz Hasnain Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Syed Riyaz Askari, Advocate holding brief of Sri Syed Faiz Hasnain, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Deepak Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶8

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.123 of 2025, under Section 8/20 of The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station- Mundha Pandey, District Moradabad, during the pendency of trial.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and to victimize him. The instant case has deliberately been foisted on the applicant owing to his criminal antecedents and the applicant is on bail in the said case. The contraband recovered is marginally above the limit of commercial quantity.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that there is no compliance of mandatory provision of Section 52-A of the N.D.P.S. Act. The criminal history assigned to the applicant stands explained. The applicant is languishing in jail since 09.04.2025. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the recovery of the contraband article is of commercial quantity. He has also stated that there is criminal history of one case assigned to the applicant.

¶12

The Supreme Court in Prabhakar Tewari vs. State of U.P. And Another, 2020 (11) SCC 648 has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail, if otherwise his case for bail is made out.

¶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

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. The bail application is allowed .

¶15

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusal of record and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment as well as totality of facts and circumstances, at this stage without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail. The application is allowed .

¶16

Let the applicant- Atiq , who is involved in aforementioned case 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.

¶17

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

¶18

(ii) The applicant shall not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses.

¶19

(iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed.

¶20

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

¶21

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.

¶22

Order Date :- 21.7.2025 (Ravi Kant)

¶23

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶24

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

Atiq v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Atiq v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Maiku vs State of U.P.

Lovsang Sering vs State of U.P.

Ashok Kumar Seth vs State of U.P.

Nitin Agarwal vs State of U.P.

Meeta Devi vs State of U.P.

Anubhav Mittal vs State of U.P.