Shadab Vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:126553

Court No. - 65

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 18969 of 2025

Applicant :- Shadab Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Prateek Sinha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Prateek Sinha, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶8

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 94 of 2025, under Section 21 of The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station- Narora, District- Bulandsaher, during the pendency of trial.

¶9

As per the allegations of the FIR, the applicant is said to have been apprehended by the police on 23.04.2025 at about 03:00 PM and 592 grams of Smack is said to have been recovered from his possession.

¶10

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. Allegations are per se false. There is no public witness to corroborate the prosecution story. There is no chemical analysis of the contraband to corroborate that the alleged recovered contraband was Smack. Learned counsel has further stated that recovery has been manipulated just to make it fall in the category of commercial quantity. There is no compliance of mandatory provision of Section 52-A of the N.D.P.S. Act. The applicant is languishing in jail since 24.04.2025 having no criminal history to his credit. The applicant is ready to cooperate with trial. 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

¶12

the ground that the recovery of the contraband article is of commercial quantity.

¶13

The Supreme 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 Supreme 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.

¶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.

¶16

Let the applicant- Shadab , 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 pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed.

¶19

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

¶20

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.

¶21

Order Date :- 29.7.2025 Karan

¶22

Digitally signed by :- KARAN KUMAR RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shadab v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shadab 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