Mohd. Iliyash Alias Mohd. Iliyas Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Ministry Home Affairs Lko

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:16611

Court No. - 13

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2450 of 2025

Applicant :- Mohd. Iliyash Alias Mohd. Iliyas Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Ministry Home Affairs Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Ruved Kamal Kidwai,Anshuman Srivastava,Najam Zafar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶6

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

¶7

This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.414 of 2025 under Sections 318(4), 319(2), 336(2) & 338/61 BNS, P.S. G.R.P., District Lucknow.

¶8

As per contents of FIR, the police team acting upon the basis of information derived from the police informant conducted a raid recovering illegal quantities of Oxytocin.

¶9

It has been submitted by learned counsel for applicant that he has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him and that he has not named in the First Information Report. It is submitted that even as per recovery memo, there is no recovery made from applicant of any quantity of Oxytocin allegedly recovered, which even otherwise does not have any independent witness. It is submitted that applicant is under incarceration since 21.12.2024 and the investigation is already undergoing without any charge-sheet having been filed. It is also submitted that co-accused Sulkhan Singh, Shyamu Gupta @ Nagendra Nath Gupta and Awadhesh Kumar Pal have already been granted bail and anticipatory bail. It is submitted that except for the alleged confessional statement, there is no material material evidence against the applicant. It is submitted that there is no previous criminal history of applicant.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. on the basis of instructions admits that investigation in the aforesaid aspect matter is still ongoing and the applicant does not have any previous criminal history or that there is any recovery from the applicant.

¶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

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties, prima facie, subject to evidence being led in trial, at this stage, it appears that the applicant is neither named in the FIR nor is there any recovery from him of the Oxytocin. Co-accused have already been enlarged on bail while applicant is still incarceration since December, 2024 without charge-sheet having been filed till date. Admittedly there is no previous criminal history.

¶15

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case of bail.

¶16

Accordingly bail application is allowed .

¶17

Let applicant- Mohd. Iliyash Alias Mohd. Iliyas involved in the aforesaid case crime 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:-

¶18

(i) 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

¶19

abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶20

(ii) 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 269 BNS.

¶21

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 84 BNSS 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 209 BNS.

¶22

(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 351 BNSS. 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 in accordance with law.

¶23

Order Date :- 24.3.2025 Satish

¶24

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

Mohd. Iliyash Alias Mohd. Iliyas v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Ministry Home Affairs Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Iliyash Alias Mohd. Iliyas v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Ministry Home Affairs 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

Amarjeet Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.

Yeshkaran Prasad Rathour and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Medical and Health Lko. and 2 Others

Ashok Yadav Alias Pradhan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Suraj Soni vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home, Lucknow

Mujahid vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Shubham Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education Lko. and 5 Others