MOHD. KAREEM v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. HOME LKO.
BAIL/10597/2025 · 2025-11-07
Karunesh Singh Pawar
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 176263 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 176263 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10597 of 2025 Court No. - 15 HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that, on the basis of information allegedly received from a secret informer, the applicant was apprehended along with a motorcycle, from which approximately 70 grams of morphine was purportedly recovered. It is further submitted that the recovered quantity is below the commercial threshold. There was no compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act, which was mandatory, as the applicant was also subjected to personal search prior to the search of the motorcycle. The alleged recovery lacks the support of any independent witness. Moreover, the applicant was not searched before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate, thereby resulting in non-compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. The applicant has duly explained his criminal history pertaining to two cases in paragraph 28 of the bail application, and the charge sheet in the present case has already been filed. It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Farooq Ayoob, Mansi Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Mohd. Kareem .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. .....Opposite Party(s)
Upon due consideration of the fact that the recovered quantity is below commercial, there appears to be no independent witness to the alleged recovery, and there is prima facie non-compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act, coupled with the fact that the applicant is in custody since 14.08.2025, this Court finds it to be a fit case for granting bail to the applicant. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant Mohd.
Kareem involved in Case Crime No. 402/2025, U/S-8/21 N.D.P.S. Act., Police Station- Safdarganj, District- Pratapgarh 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 with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iv) 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. (v) 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 in accordance with law. (vi) 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. (now Section 84 BNSS) is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate BAIL No. 10597 of 2025 2
proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A IPC (now Section 209 of BNS).
It is clarified that the observations made in this order are confined to the present bail application and shall have no bearing on the merits of the trial. November 7, 2025 R.C.
BAIL No. 10597 of 2025 3 (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench