Blog

The security required by a court for the release of a prisoner who must appear at a future time.” The objective of arrest is to deliver justice by presenting the accused before the Court. However, if the same objective can be achieved without making any arrest then there is no need to violate his liberty. The case was held by the High court of Allahabad through the learned bench by a single bench: Hon’ble Krishan Pahal, J.In the matter of Gaurav @ Gaura Versus State of U.P.[ CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. – 13747] of 2021 death with an issue mentioned above.

In the compliance affidavit, it has been stated that there are 49 criminal cases registered against the applicant. As per the DCRB report, out of 49 cases 48 cases have been registered at P.S. Khatauli, District Muzaffar Nagar and one case i.e., Case Crime No. 420 of 2011 under Section 60 Excise Act r/w Section 272, 273 I.P.C. was registered at P.S. Mansoorpur, District Muzaffar Nagar. It is further stated in paragraph No. 7 of the said affidavit that due to typographical error Police Station of Case Crime No. 420 of 2011 has been typed as Mansoorpur in place of Khatauli. The report provided by DCRB has been annexed as Annexure No. 2 to the compliance affidavit.

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant has been arrested by the police and from his possession, 102.66-gram Alprazolam is said to have been recovered. He has further submitted that nothing has been recovered from the possession of the applicant and the alleged recovery is false and fabricated. It is further submitted that there is no chemical analysis report to prove that the recovered contraband is actually the Alprazolam powder or something else. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that at the time of arrest, mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act have not been complied with. Lastly, it is also been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that he has been implicated in several criminal cases by the police for the reason that the father of the applicant has made several complaints against the police officials of District Muzaffar Nagar.

The court perused the facts and arguments presented in the case this considering the facts of the case and keeping in mind, the ratio of the Apex Court’s judgment in the case of Union of India vs. Shiv Shankar Keshari (supra), the larger mandate of Article 21 of the constitution of India, the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused-applicant, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interest of the public/ state and other circumstances, but without expressing any opinion on the merits, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail.

Click here to read the judgment

Judgment reviewed by Sakshi Mishra