Mohan Lal vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:112859

Court No. - 87

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3945 of 2025

Applicant :- Mohan Lal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Jitendra Kumar Shishodia Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Avnish Saxena,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Jitendra Kumar Shishodia, learned Panel counsel appointed by High Court Legal Services Committee for applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

Sri Shishodia submits that despite intimating the office, he failed to get an affidavit of accused in support of bail application. Hence, prayed for exemption. Exempted in the interest of justice and considering long incarceration of accused in jail.

¶8

Sri Shishodia, submits that the accused/applicant has been falsely implicated in Case Crime No.372 of 2021, under Sections 21/22 of N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Mathura. Further contends that the accused-applicant is innocent and has been implicated in this case on the basis of tip off to police. The accusedapplicant has been apprehended and on search 120 gm Alprazolam power has been allegedly recovered, in absence of independent witness. Hence, his false implication in the crime cannot be ruled out. It is next contended that in the present case the prosecution has failed to follow strictly the provisions of Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act. The applicant is in jail since 13.06.2021, deserve to be released on bail due to long incarceration without trial. In case the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶9

Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicants by contending that the charge sheet has been submitted in the matter on 29.11.2021. There is a criminal history against the accused-applicant of Section 380 IPC of the year, 2012, which is not explained. The mandatory compliance of N.D.P.S. Act has been carried out. The accused-applicant is habitual offender.

¶10

This Court has taken into consideration the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

¶11

It is settled position of law that bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception as propounded in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Balchand @ Baliay (1977) 4 SCC 308 , the Apex Court observed that refusal of bail is a

¶12

restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and opined para 2 "The basic rule may perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail, except where there are circumstances suggestive of fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like, by the petitioner who seeks enlargement on bail from the court. We do. not intend to be exhaustive but only illustrative." and considering the facts of the case and keeping in mind, the ratio of the Apex Court's judgment in the case of Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors vs Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh, (1928) 1 SCC 240 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.

¶13

In the case of Mohd. Muslim alias Hussain Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2023) 18 SCC 166] the Apex Court observed and held that the rigour under Section 37 of N.D.P.S. Act would not come in the way, when the Court deals with the liberty of a person, as more the rigour, quicker ought to be the adjudication.

¶14

Without expressing any opinion on the merits, considering that the applicantaccused is in jail since 13.06.2021 and there is nothing on record to show early conclusion of trial, moreover, the police party has arrested the accused, when he was seen standing near a kiosk with polythene in hand, started running seeing police. The arrest and recovery is made in absence of independent witness. The compliance of mandatory provisions of NDPS Act is subject to trial. Let the applicant- Mohan Lal involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

¶15

The bail application of the applicants is, accordingly, allowed .

¶16

A copy of this bail order shall be sent to Secretary DLSA, Mathura for followup action.

¶17

Order Date :- 14.7.2025 Sanjeet

¶18

(Avnish Saxena,J.)

¶19

Digitally signed by :- SANJEET KUMAR YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mohan Lal v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohan Lal 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

Irfan @ Chawanii vs State of U.P.

Sarvesh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Rahul Pal vs Union of India

Deepak Alias Manish vs State of U.P.

Sharma Sahni vs State of U.P.

Raju Anuragi vs State of U.P.