Aryan vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:29259

Court No. - 13

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4269 of 2025

Applicant :- Aryan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Rehan Ahmad Siddiqui,Dildar Khan,Vishwajeet Singh Yadav 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.446 of 2023, under Sections 27-A, 29 NDPS Act, registered at Police Station Gomti Nagar, District Lucknow.

¶8

As per contents of FIR/ recovery memo, video was allegedly circulated on social media on 16.07.2023 indicating certain persons in the process of counting currency notes with intoxicants also being available. On the said basis, a police team acting upon information supplied on 22.07.2023 is said to have raided a hotel with the nominated persons allegedly being discovered.

¶9

Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him which could be evident from a perusal of recovery memo itself which does not indicate any incriminating or intoxicating product being found on person of applicant. It is submitted that the entire FIR is based only on the video that was circulated on social media and is based even otherwise only on suspicion. It is therefore submitted that provisions of Section 27A and Section 29 NDPS Act are clearly not made out. Applicant does not have any previous criminal history is under incarceration since 02.04.2025. The applicant's name has been nominated on the basis of confessional statement.

¶10

Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed the bail application but admits that there is no previous criminal history against the applicant.

¶11

Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. Central

¶12

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 :-

¶13

"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."

¶14

"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."

¶15

Considering submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material available on record, it appears from a perusal of recovery memo that the alleged raid has taken place after almost a week of the video being viral on the social media. It also appears that there is no recovery of any intoxicating product from the applicant which the recovery memo indicates only suspicion of such product. Applicant does not have any previous criminal history. Applicant is under incarceration since 02.04.2025.

¶16

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, prima facie, this Court finds, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

¶17

Accordingly bail application is allowed .

¶18

Let applicant, Aryan 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:-

¶19

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

¶20

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.

¶21

(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.

¶22

(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.

¶23

(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.

¶24

Order Date :- 19.5.2025 Renu/-

¶25

Digitally signed by :- RENU AGARWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Aryan v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aryan v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home 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

Similar cases

Abhishek Kumar Sharma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Naushad Ali Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko and Another

Shivam Dubey @ Golu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Sanjeev Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Dilip Kumar Kashyap @ Pillur vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Kalam Khan @ Mohd. Kalam vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another