Israr @ Guddu vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:32806

Court No. - 13

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4778 of 2025

Applicant :- Israr @ Guddu Opposite Party :- The State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Harish Chandra Yadav,Lalit Kumar Saxena 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. 20 of 2025 under Sections 8/20 (B) (C) NDPS, Act, registered at Police Station Achalganj, District Unnao.

¶8

As per contents of FIR, an S.T.F. team on the basis of information supplied is said to have apprehended the applicant alongwith co-accused while they were sitting on a railway station. Recovery 6.77 kg. of illegal narcotics is said to have been recovered from co-accused Ganpat Yadav.

¶9

Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in allegations levelled against him and that even as per contents of FIR, recovery of illegal narcotics is said to have been made from co-accused Ganpat Yadav with applicant only accompanied the said person. It is submitted that previous criminal history of one case has already been explained while applicant is under incarceration since 18.01.2025.

¶10

Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed the bail application with the submission that applicant in fact was accompanying the said main accused from whose possession illegal narcotics were recovered.

¶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

¶12

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 that recovery of illegal narcotics has been made from co-accused Ganpat Yadav with whom the applicant is said to be accompanied. Evidently there is no recovery of any narcotics from the applicant. Previous criminal history of one case has been explained, applicant is under incarceration since 18.01.2025.

¶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, 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.

¶17

Accordingly bail application is allowed .

¶18

Let applicant, Israr @ Guddu 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 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.

¶20

(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.

¶21

(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.

¶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 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.

¶23

Order Date :- 29.5.2025 Satish

¶24

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

Israr @ Guddu v. the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Israr @ Guddu v. the 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

Similar cases

Rajesh Kumar Chaudhary vs State of U.P. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Sectt. Lko

Ashok Kumar Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

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

Brahma Nand vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Revenue, Lko. and 3 Others

Shivam Tripathi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko and Another

Rajitram @ Subhash vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others