Allahabad High Court
Ahmad @ Balaji vs State Of U.P. on 20 September, 2019
Author: Pankaj Bhatia
Bench: Pankaj Bhatia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 16 Case :- BAIL No. - 8218 of 2019 Applicant :- Ahmad @ Balaji Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Suhail Kashif Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No.159 of 2019, under Section 8/21 NDPS Act, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Barabanki.
The learned counsel for the applicant argues that 300 grams morphine is alleged to have been recovered from the applicant. He argues that provision of Section 50 of the NDPS Act has not been complied with and the applicant is in jail since 13.02.2019. As regards the criminal history he has informed the Court that the applicant was involved in case crime no.136/2019, under Section 307/34 IPC and case crime no.137/19, under Section 3/5/8 Cow Slaughter Act. He argues that he has been falsely implicated.
Learned A.G.A. on the other hand argues that in the FSL report the recovery of morphine has been substantiated as such the applicant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail. The applicant also relies upon an order of this Court in Bail No.6456 of 2019 whereby the accused have been enlarged on bail on the allegations of recovery of 300 grams of morphine.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and also perusing the material on record, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, the applicant is entitled for bail.
Let the applicant - Ahmad @ Balaji involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions :-
(i) 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.
(ii) 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 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section-174 A of the Indian Penal Code.
(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 CrPC. 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 in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 20.9.2019 mks