Allahabad High Court
Case Details
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14237 of 2025 Nazim Abbasi Union of India Versus .....Applicant(s) .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Aman Kumar, Rahul Pandey : Ashish Pandey Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised.
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard 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. 3. Applicant 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. 4. Learned 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. 5. Per 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 2 BAIL No. 14237 of 2025 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. 6. This 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. 7. Granting 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. 8. Having 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. 9. Over 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 3 BAIL No. 14237 of 2025 as a punishment. 10. In 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." 8. The same principle was reiterated by the Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibba v. State of Punjab reported in (1980) 2 SCC 565; Hussainara