Nazim Abbasi v. Union of India

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14237 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

¶1List has been revised.

¶2Heard Sri Hasan Parvez, Advocate holding brief of Sri Aman Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Vipul Pandey, Advocate holding brief of Sri Ashish Pandey, learned counsel for the NCB and perused the material placed on record.

¶3Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.24 of 2020, under Sections 8/15/29 N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station-N.C.B., District-Lucknow, during the pendency of trial.

¶4Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further argued that case of the applicant is at par with the co-accused person who was arrested with the applicant whose second bail application has been granted by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 07.03.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8906 of 2024. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 30.08.2020, as such, he is incarcerated for about five years. Applicant is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶5Per contra, learned counsel for the NCB has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that it is an open and shut case as heavy amount of contraband was recovered from the applicant which is about 990Kg of Opium Poppy Straw, although, he has not disputed the fact that applicant has Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Aman Kumar, Rahul Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Ashish Pandey Nazim Abbasi .....Applicant(s) Union of India .....Opposite Party(s) no criminal history. Learned counsel for the NCB has also placed reliance on the order of Supreme Court in case of Vanthala Murali Vs. Union of India in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) Nos(s). 13520 of 2023 (arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 04.08.2023 in CRLOP No. 8871 of 2023 passed by the High Court of Judicature At Madras) wherein the Supreme Court has rejected the bail application of the appellant therein despite him being incarcerated for four years and statement of P.W.1 was going on, the trial court was directed to conclude the trial in six months.

¶6This Court had called for status of trial from the trial court concerned. As per status report dated 22.08.2025, no witness has been examined to date. The said callous approach of the department stands deprecated. The Supreme Court in case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2022) 10 SCC 51 has categorically provided that in cases of special acts, it is the duty of the prosecution to get the trial concluded expeditiously.

¶7Granting the bail to the accused in Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another 2024 INSC 645, the Supreme Court has observed: "7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, we are inclined to exercise our discretion in favour of the appellant herein keeping in mind the following aspects:

(i) The appellant is in jail as an under-trial prisoner past four years;

(ii) Till this date, the trial court has not been able to even proceed to frame charge; and

(iii) As pointed out by the counsel appearing for the State as well as NIA, the prosecution intends to examine not less than eighty witnesses.

¶8Having regard to the aforesaid, we wonder by what period of time, the trial will ultimately conclude. Howsoever serious a crime may be, an accused has a right to speedy trial as enshrined under the Constitution of India.

¶9Over a period of time, the trial courts and the High Courts have forgotten a very well settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment.

¶10In the aforesaid context, we may remind the trial courts and the High Courts of what came to be observed by this Court in Gudikanti Narasimhulu & Ors. v. Public Prosecutor, High Court reported in

(1978) 1 SCC 240. We quote: "What is often forgotten, and therefore warrants reminder, is the object to keep a person in judicial custody pending trial or disposal of an appeal. Lord Russel, C.J., said [R v. Rose,

(1898) 18 Cox]: "I observe that in this case bail was refused for the prisoner. It cannot be too strongly impressed on the, magistracy of the country that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment, but that the requirements as to bail are merely to secure the attendance of the prisoner at trial."

¶8The same principle was reiterated by the Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibba v. State of Punjab reported in (1980) 2 SCC 565; Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secy., State of Bihar (1980) 1 SCC 81; Kadra Pahadiya & Ors. v. State of Bihar (1981) 3 SCC 671 and Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak (1992) 1 SCC 225; Mohd Muslim @ Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi) 2023 INSC 311; A Convict Prisoner v. State 1993 Cri LJ 3242; Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713; Indrani Pratim Mukerjea v. CBI, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 695.

¶9In the money laundering case of V. Senthil Balaji V. The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement 2024 INSC 739, the accused was incarcerated for more than 15 months as such the Supreme Court declared "inordinate delay in the conclusion of the trial and the higher threshold for the grant of bail cannot go together".

¶10In Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in

(2022) 10 SCC 51, prolonged incarceration and inordinate delay engaged the attention of the court, which considered the correct approach towards bail, with respect to several enactments, including Section 37 NDPS Act.

¶11The Supreme Court in its latest judgement passed in SLP (Crl.) Nos.10455-10456/2025 Ramnath Mishra @ Ramanath Mishra v. Central Bureau of Investigation reiterated that issues of personal liberty must be addressed with utmost speed by Courts. The accused had already been incarcerated for more than three and a half years, in the instant and connected matters. Releasing accused on bail due to excessive delays by the High Court in deciding his application also took into account lengthy pre-trial confinement, emphasizing speedy decision-making for matters of personal liberty.

¶12Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the Period of incarceration of the applicant coupled with the fact that co-accused person has also been enlarged on bail, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, prima facie, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶13Let the applicant-Nazim Abbasi, 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.

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence during trial.

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

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

¶14In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶15It 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. September 18, 2025 Karan (Krishan Pahal,J.) High Court of Judicature at Allahabad