Allowed¶16

Mohd. Raees v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

NDPS Act – Bail – Sections 8/21 NDPS Act

Allahabad HC16 Apr 2025BAIL/2060/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench (Manish Mathur, J.), Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 2060 of 2025, order dated 19.5.2025, Neutral Citation 2025:AHC-LKO:29489: bail allowed to Mohd. Raees in Case Crime No. 483 of 2024, P.S. Rudauli, District Ayodhya, under Sections 8/21 NDPS Act (95 gm smack); Section 37 NDPS conditions satisfied; no independent witness of recovery; FIR silent on Magistrate/Gazetted Officer presence; Sections 42/50/52A violations left to trial; reliance on Sanjay Chandra v. CBI (2012) 1 SCC 40.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to applicant Mohd. Raees on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to conditions imposed in the interest of justice. ¶16

Mohd. Raees vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:29489

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2060 of 2025 Applicant :- Mohd. Raees Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Gulam Rabbani Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and perused the record.

¶6

1A. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶7

This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.483 of 2024, under Section 8/21 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985, registered at Police Station Rudauli, District Ayodhya.

¶8

As per contents of FIR, incident is said to have taken place on 03.11.2024 when a police team acting upon information supplied is said to have apprehended applicant with illegal narcotics in his possession.

¶9

Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in allegations levelled against him which would be evident from the fact that there is no independent witness of the alleged incident. It is submitted that a perusal of recovery memo itself would indicate violation of provisions of Sections 42, 50 & 52A NDPS Act. It is submitted that previous criminal history of applicant of 17 cases has already been explained and although applicant is under incarceration since 03.11.2024, trial is at the very inception.

¶10

Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed bail application but does not dispute the aforesaid facts. It is however submitted that provisions of Section 52A NDPS Act has subsequently been held only to be procedural in nature and would not vitiate prior.

¶11

Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation , reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 has specifically held that bail is to be a norm and an under-trial is not required to be in jail for ever pending trial. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment are as under :-

¶12

"21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty."

¶13

"27. This Court, time and again, has stated that bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. It has also observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution."

¶14

Considering submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material available on record, it appears that there is no independent witness of the alleged recovery of 95 gm of smack. The aspect of violation of provisions of NDPS Act would be subject matter of trial with evidence. The FIR however does not indicate presence of any Magistrate or Gazatted Officer during the said proceedings. Previous criminal history of applicant has been explained while he is under incarceration since 03.11.2024.

¶15

Looking to the nature of allegations levelled against the applicant and submission made in the bail application, without expressing any opinion on the merits of case and considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, particularly since no reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses has been alleged, in view of aforesaid discussion, conditions under Section 37 of NDPS Act stand satisfied. Prima facie, this Court finds, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

¶16

9. Accordingly bail application is allowed .

¶17

Let applicant, Mohd. Raees involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his/her 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:-

¶18

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she/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.

¶19

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

¶20

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his/her 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/her, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶21

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court, absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him/her in accordance with law.

¶22

Order Date : - 19.5.2025 Subodh/-

¶23

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

Mohd. Raees v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Raees v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

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

Shyamta Prasad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Saurabh Kumar @ Sajjan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.

Adarsh Singh @ Yashu Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

Harjeet Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Arpit Srivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Sharukh Mansuri Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another