Mohammad Aleem Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru Principal Sec. Home

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:42347

Court No. - 14

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 616 of 2025

Applicant :- Mohammad Aleem Ahmad Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru Principal Sec. Home Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Pandey,Saad Husain,Shashank Shekhar Singh

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.

¶8

In the prosecution case, it is alleged that on 10.11.2024 at around 7:00 a.m., acting on information received from an informer, an Ertiga car bearing registration No. UP50AU3999, parked on the route from Mati to Safedabad, was located. Upon searching the vehicle, the applicant along with co-accused persons were found inside. Two polythene bags containing suspected material were recovered from the vehicle. Upon inspection, 208 grams of smack were recovered from one bag and 810 grams from the other.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. It is further argued that although prior information was allegedly received by the police, the same was not reduced into writing which is mandatory requirement of Section 42 of the NDPS Act. Separate samples were not drawn at the time of recovery; rather, samples were taken after a delay of four days in the presence of a Magistrate. However, no certificate has been issued by the Magistrate regarding the said sampling, which renders the process doubtful. The arrest memo is also suspicious, as it contains the case crime number at the time of preparation, which appears highly improbable. Although the Circle Officer was allegedly present during the search and seizure, neither has he been cited as a prosecution witness nor has his statement been recorded, which raise serious doubts on the authenticity of the prosecution version.

¶10

It is further submitted that the co-accused Shah Faisal has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 3.7.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 615 of 2025. The applicant has no criminal antecedents and he is languishing in jail since 10.11.2024. There is no likelihood of the applicant fleeing from judicial custody or tampering with prosecution witnesses. If released on bail, he undertakes not to

¶11

misuse the liberty so granted.

¶12

Learned AGA has opposed the bail application, however, has not been able to offer any plausible explanation as to why the Circle Officer has not been made a prosecution witness or how the arrest memo bears the case crime number at the time of its preparation.

¶13

Perused the record.

¶14

Upon due consideration of the mandatory requirements under Section 42 of the NDPS Act, the manner in which sampling was carried out, the suspicious nature of the arrest memo, and the fact that the Circle Officer, allegedly present at the time of recovery, has neither been made a prosecution witness nor has his statement been recorded, this Court finds that the prosecution case appears doubtful.

¶15

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, so also the fact that the applicant has no previous criminal antecedents; he is languishing in jail since 10.11.2024; the co-accused Shah Faisal has already been granted bail by this Court; the twin conditions of 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act appears to have been satisfied; there are reasonable grounds for believing that the applicant may not be held guilty of the alleged offence and he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

¶16

In view of the above, the bail application of the applicant is allowed .

¶17

Let the applicant- Mohammad Aleem Ahmad involved in Case Crime/F.I.R. No. 766/2024, under Sections 8/21/25/29/60 N.D.P.S. Act, P.S. Dewa, District Barabanki, 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 will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶19

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶20

(iii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶21

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

¶22

(v) 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 of BNS.

¶23

(vi) 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 of BNS.

¶24

It is clarified that the observations made in this order are confined to the present bail application and shall have no bearing on the merits of the trial.

¶25

Order Date :- 23.7.2025 Shravan

¶26

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

Mohammad Aleem Ahmad v. State of U.P. Thru Principal Sec. Home

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Aleem Ahmad v. State of U.P. Thru Principal Sec. Home

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Prem Chandra Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Smt. Bhagmati Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Saheem Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Raksha Sonkar vs M/S Paarth Infrabuild Pvt. Thru. Authorised Signatory

Gyan Prakash Upadhyay vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko

Gyan Prakash Upadhyay vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko.