Yaseen v. State of U.P

Court No. - 74 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 47410 of 2023 Applicant :- Yaseen Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Jitendra Rana Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶1Learned AGA for the State submits that the instructions have been received and he has no objection in case the bail application is decided on merits

¶2Heard learned Counsel for the applicant, Neeraj Kumar Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶3The instant bail application, under Section 439 Cr.P.C., has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 769 of 2023, under Section 8/21 N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station-Kavi Nagar, District-Ghaziabad during pendency of the trial.

¶4Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. False recovery of 250 gm. smack has been shown from the applicant. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. The mandatory provisions of section 50 of N.D.P.S. Act have not been complied with. There is no F.S.L. report to establish that the substance recovered is 'smack'. While weighing the recovered substance, the police has weighed it along with packing material. No accurate scientific instruments were used for weighment. The applicant does not have any criminal history. The applicant is in jail since 29.8.2023. In case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶5Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶6Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this Court prima facie finds that there is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. Mandate of Chapter 5 of the N.D.P.S. Act has not been followed. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. Further the applicant has presently remained confined for more than two months and there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, more so when no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the evidence or intimidate the witness, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶7Let the applicant, Yaseen involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned on the following conditions that: i. the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; ii. the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witness; iii. the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court.

¶8In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. Order Date :- 20.11.2023 S.S. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad