Riyazul vs State of U.P.

Heard Sri Jay Prakash Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Sunil Kumar, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶10

By means of the present application, the applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 0011 of 2024, under Sections 8/22 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Police Station - Shalimar Garden, District - Ghaziabad, during the pendency of trial.

¶11

As per the prosecution story, 115 grams of alprazolam is stated to have been recovered from the possession of the applicant by police on 06.01.2024 at about 12:45 PM.

¶12

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and to victimize him. No incriminating article has been recovered from the possession of the applicant. There is no independent witness to support the prosecution version. There is no chemical analyst report which indicates that the alleged recovery is a contraband article. The recovered contraband has been inflated by the informant just to make it fall within the category of commercial quantity. There is no compliance of Sections 50 & 52-A of NDPS Act with regard to search and seizure. The applicant is languishing in jail since 06.01.2024, having no

¶13

BAIL No. 9429 of 2025

¶14

2

¶15

criminal history to his credit deserves to be released on bail. In case, the applicant is released on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial.

¶16

Per contra learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant and also the fact that the applicant has no criminal history.

¶17

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusal of record and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment as well as totality of facts and circumstances, at this stage without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail. The bail application is allowed .

¶18

Let the applicant- Riyazul , who is involved in aforementioned 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶19

i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during trial.

¶20

ii) The applicant will not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses.

¶21

iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed.

¶22

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶23

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶24

September 15, 2025 Siddhant

¶25

(Krishan Pahal,J.)

¶26

Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Riyazul v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Riyazul 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Lalji Gond vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Chandan Chauhan vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mohd. Rashid Husain vs State of U.P.

Sheshman Urf Ganesh Yadav vs State of U.P.

Waseem Malik vs State of U.P.

Abhishek Yadav vs State of U.P. and 3 Others