# Salman Hashmi v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2023) 7 ILRA 681
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-07-20
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 9143 of 2023
- **Bench:** Pankaj Bhatia
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/salman-hashmi-v-state-of-u-p-50589
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Law
-
Narcotic
Drugs
and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
-
Sections12 & 23-no allegation except for the
confessional St.ment -alleged recovery of
Tramadol-offence u/s 12 cannot be said to be
made out merely by recovery at the instance
and pointing out the applicant -as alleged in the
FIR-requirements of Section 23 prima-facie not
fulfilled - once the allegations of Section 12 are
not made out-prima-facie the offence u/s 24 not
sustainable in the trial no criminal antecedent -
entitled to be enlarged on bail. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

7 All. Salman Hashmi Vs. State of U.P.
681
present applicants were allowed to appear
through
their
counsels
in
the
trial
proceedings

33. This court expects that the
learned trial Court shall positively allow
the applicants through their counsel in the
trial proceeding and would try to conclude
the trial.

34. Further, the applicants are also
directed, not to seek any adjournment and
shall cooperate with the trial proceedings,
by concluding their arguments at the
earliest.

35. With the aforesaid observation
and directions, the instant application is
here by allowed.
----------
(2023) 7 ILRA 681
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 20.07.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 9143 of 2023

Salman Hashmi ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Ayodhya
Prasad
Mishra
A.P.
Mishra,
Jaylaxmi Upadhyay, Rituraj Mishra

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
G.A.

Criminal
Law
-
Narcotic
Drugs
and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
-
Sections12 & 23-no allegation except for the
confessional St.ment -alleged recovery of
Tramadol-offence u/s 12 cannot be said to be
made out merely by recovery at the instance
and pointing out the applicant -as alleged in the
FIR-requirements of Section 23 prima-facie not
fulfilled - once the allegations of Section 12 are
not made out-prima-facie the offence u/s 24 not
sustainable in the trial no criminal antecedent -
entitled to be enlarged on bail. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1. U.O.I. Vs Balmukund & ors.2009 (12) SCC
161

2. Mohd Muslim @ Hussain vs St. (Nct Of Delhi)
2023 Live Law (SC) 260

3. Ranjitsingh Brahmajeetsing Sharma Vs St. of
Mah. & anr.(2005) 5 SCC 294.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
applicant and learned AGA for the State as
well as perused the record.

2. The FIR in question was lodged as
Case Crime No.0178 of 2023 under
Sections 419, 420 IPC read with Section 66
of Information Technology Act and under
Section 12, 23, 24 of NDPS Act at P.S.-
Wazirganj, District-Lucknow. The version
as contained in the FIR on record reveals
the recovery of 370 strips of allegedly
prohibited drug Tramadol besides the cash,
mobile, laptop, vehicle Mahindra Scorpio
as well as one scooty was seized by the
department. The allegation in FIR reveals
that information was recieved that around
Lucknow,
the
prohibited
intoxicated
medicines were being sold online and were
being purchased online and huge money
was being made out of said business. Based
on the said information, a team was
constituted and on the basis of information
received from the Mukhbir that the said
business was being carried out online
through a call centre. A team was
constituted comprising of as many as 6 to 7
persons.
It
further
records
that
on
682 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
13.6.2023, an information was recieved
that a king pin of the gang i.e. Salman
Hashmi the applicant along with his
accomplice was available at the Kesarbag
flat where the said Salman Hashmi runs a
call centre. Receiving the said information,
a team was constituted which went on a
Government Vehicle.
Mukhbir
further
informed, as per the FIR in question, that
the applicant has assembled in the flat in
question
for
selling
the
medicine.
Subsequently, it is recorded that the drug
inspector was informed and he came and
was informed that they were going to carry
out the search in flat in question. On
reaching the place, two persons including
the applicant were present and on asking
their names, they disclosed their names as
Salman Hashmi and accepted that they sell
the
prohibited
medicines
through
International gang.

3. It was allegedly admitted by the
applicant, that they used to sell the
prohibited drugs on the daily basis through
their online platform like- Buy soma
online, overnight delivery, buy soma meds,
Online meds guru- buy soma xanax online,
buy Tramadol online and online meds care.
It also records that the applicant admitted
that he used to make available the said
prohibited drugs. It was also admitted by
him that he used to get the money of the
said prohibited drug in his account. It was
allegedly admitted that the applicant used
to sell the drugs in India and across the
globe and used to earn lot of profits. It is
also recorded that the applicant took the
name of one 'Al-zaid', as his accomplice. In
the said recovery, an identity card of the bar
counsel of U.P. was recovered besides an
ATM card and mobile, wrist watch and
laptop and a service tag. It also records that
the
applicant
informed
that
he
has
purchased vehicle out of the profit of the
said
business.
From
the
other
coaccomplice Al-zaid, certain recoveries
including Aadhar card, ATM card, mobile
phone were recovered.

4. Based upon the said submissions,
as recorded herein above, the FIR further
records that a view is formed that the
applicant is involved in the import and
export of medicine called Tramadol. It
further records that from the mobiles
recovered, several chats were shown as
well as list of buyers was also revealed. It
also records that substantial quantity of the
said medicine Tramadol were kept in the
vehicle which was recovered at the flat, it
further records that the drug inspector who
had gone along with the team, on
inspection was of view that the Tramadol
medicine cannot be kept by any person in
excess of the quantity prescribed. It is also
recorded that on the said drug Tramadol,
batch number, date of manufacturing and
expiry were not mentioned. The total
quantity of Tramadol allegedly recovered
was 370 strips of tablet-Tramef, 40 strips of
tablet- Tramacet and 10 strips of Ultra
King, 260 tablets of Nexdol-P which
according to the FIR were above the
commercial quantity. It is also recorded that
in terms of the Government Order dated
26.4.2018, the small quantity of Tramadol
is 5 grams and commercial quantity is 250
grams. It also records that no sample was
drawn
from
the
tablets
TramefAP,Tramacet,Nexdol-P and Ultra King and
10-10 strips out of the total sample were
taken for analysis and they were seen as
such the applicant was charged under
Section 419, 420 IPC and 66 of the I.T. Act
read with Section 12, 23, 24 of NDPS Act.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant
argues that the applicant is a lawyer and has
been falsely implicated on account of a
dispute with the police. He argues that
7 All. Salman Hashmi Vs. State of U.P.
683
without going into the said history, primafacie the offence as narrated in the FIR is not
made out. In support of the said arguments,
he draws my attention firstly to Section 66 of
the I.T. Act which prescribes for punishment
for commission of offence under Section 43
with dishonest and fraudulent intention. He
then draws attention to Section 43 of the I.T.
Act ,which provides for penalty for damage
of computer, computer system etc. without
the permission of the owner or the other
person who is in-charge of the computer,
computer system or computer network.
Section 43 and 66 of the I.T. Act are quoted
herein below:

"Section
43.
Penalty
and
compensation for damage to computer,
computer system, etc. -If any person without
permission of the owner or any other person
who is incharge of a computer, computer
system or computer network,-

(a) accesses or secures access to
such
computer,
computer
system
or
computer
network
46
[or
computer
resource];

(b) downloads, copies or extracts
any data, computer data base or information
from such computer, computer system or
computer network including information or
data held or stored in any removable storage
medium;

(c) introduces or causes to be
introduced any computer contaminant or
computer virus into any computer, computer
system or computer network;

(d) damages or causes to be
damaged any computer, computer system or
computer network, data, computer data base
or any other programmes residing in such
computer, computer system or computer
network;

(e) disrupts or causes disruption of
any computer, computer system or computer
network;

(f) denies or causes the denial of
access to any person authorised to access any
computer, computer system or computer
network by any means;

(g) provides any assistance to any
person to facilitate access to a computer,
computer system or computer network in
contravention of the provisions of this Act,
rules or regulations made thereunder;

(h) charges the services availed of by
a person to the account of another person by
tampering with or manipulating any computer,
computer system, or computer network,

(i) destroys, deletes or alters any
information residing in a computer resource or
diminishes its value or utility or affects it
injuriously by any means;]

(j) steal, conceals, destroys or alters
or causes any person to steal, conceal, destroy
or alter any computer source code used for a
computer resource with an intention to cause
damage;] 48 [he shall be liable to pay
damages by way of compensation to the
person so affected]. Explanation.- For the
purposes of this section,-

(i) "computer contaminant" means
any set of computer instructions that are
designed-

(a) to modify, destroy, record,
transmit data or programme residing within a
computer, computer system or computer
network; or

(b) by any means to usurp the
normal
operation
of
the
computer,
computer system, or computer network;

(ii) "computer database" means a
representation of information, knowledge,
684 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
facts, concepts or instructions in text,
image, audio, video that are being prepared
or have been prepared in a formalised
manner or have been produced by a
computer, computer system or computer
network and are intended for use in a
computer, computer system or computer
network;

(iii) "computer virus" means any
computer instruction, information, data or
programme
that
destroys,
damages,
degrades
or
adversely
affects
the
performance of a computer resource or
attaches
itself
to
another
computer
resource and operates when a programme,
data or instruction is executed or some
other event takes place in that computer
resource;

(iv) "damage" means to destroy,
alter, delete, add, modify or rearrange any
computer resource by any means;

[(v) "computer source code"
means the listing of programmes, computer
commands,
design
and
layout
and
programme analysis of computer resource
in any form.

Section 66. Computer related
offences.- If any person, dishonestly or
fraudulently, does any act referred to in
section 43, he shall be punishable with
imprisonment for a term which may extend
to three years or with fine which may
extend to five lakh rupees or with both.

Explanation.--For the purposes of
this section,--

(a) the word "dishonestly" shall
have the meaning assigned to it in section
24 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860);"

6. Counsel for applicant also submits
that for the sake of arguments, if all the
allegations are treated to be gospel truth, no
offence can be said to be made out under
Section 66 of I.T. Act. Even otherwise he
argues that the punishment prescribed
under Section 66 of I.T. Act is three years,
thus, the applicant is entitled to be enlarged
on bail.

7. As regards Section 419 and 420
IPC, the submissions of the counsel for
applicant is that to hold charge under
Section 419 and 420 IPC, it is essential that
ingredients of Section 415 should be
necessarily be made. He takes me to the
Section 415 of the IPC which defines
cheating and provides that who ever by
receiving dishonesty in person so deceived
to deliver any property to any person and,
thus, the Act as prescribed, is liable for
punishment under Section 419 and 420
IPC. He further argues that from the plain
reading of the FIR, even if all the
allegations are treated to be gospel truth, no
offence as defined under Section 415 can
said to be made out and, thus, the applicant
cannot be prosecuted under Section 419
and 420 IPC.

8. Learned counsel for applicant then
takes me to the mandate of Section 12, 23
and 24 of the NDPS Act. Section 12 of the
NDPS Act reads as under:

"12. Restrictions over external
dealings
in
narcotic
drugs
and
psychotropic substances.-No person shall
engage in or control any trade whereby a
narcotic drug or psychotropic substance is
obtained outside India and supplied to any
person outside India save with the previous
authorisation of the Central Government
and subject to such conditions as may be
imposed by that Government in this
behalf."

9. Thus, Section 12 of the NDPS Act,
prohibits any person from engaging in or
control any trade whereby a narcotic drug
7 All. Salman Hashmi Vs. State of U.P.
685
or psychotropic substance is obtained
outside India and supplied to any person
outside India without sanction of the
Central Government. In the light of the
said, counsel for applicant argues that there
is no allegation, even if for the sake of
arguments, the allegations leveled are
treated to be correct that any Tramadol
tablet was procured from outside India and
was sold to any person outside India and,
thus, prima-facie, Section 12 cannot be said
to be invoked against the applicant.

10. He further draws my attention to
Section 23 and 24 of the NDPS Act.
Section 23 of the NDPS Act which is read
as under:

"23. Punishment for illegal
import in to India, export from India or
transhipment of narcotic drugs and
psychotropic
substances.-Whoever,
in
contravention of any provision of this Act
or any rule or order made or condition of
licence or permit granted or certificate or
authorisation issued thereunder, imports
into India or exports from India or
tranships
any
narcotic
drug
or
psychotropic
substance
shall
be
punishable,-

(a)
where
the
contravention
involves small quantity, with rigorous
imprisonment for a term which may extend
to six months, or with fine, which may
extend to ten thousand rupees or with both;

(b)
where
the
contravention
involves quantity lesser than commercial
quantity but greater than small quantity,
with rigorous imprisonment for a term
which may extend to ten years, and with
fine; which may extend to one lakh rupees;

(c)
where
the
contravention
involves commercial quantity, with rigorous
imprisonment for a term which shall not be
less than ten years but which may extend to
twenty years and shall also be liable to fine
which shall not be less than one lakh
rupees but which may extend to two lakh.

Provided that the court may, for
reasons to be recorded in the judgment,
impose a fine exceeding two lakh rupees."

11. The said Section bars and
provides punishment for illegal import into
India
and
export
from
India
or
transhipment
of
narcotic
drug
or
psychotropic substances. He argues that
phrase import and export under Section 23
have not been defined under the Act and,
thus, the meaning assigned under the
Customs Act would have to be taken into
consideration. He argues that there is no
allegation against the applicant importing
anything into India or exporting anything
out of India in the FIR and, thus, no offence
can be said to be made, which is punishable
under Section 23.

12. He next takes me to the mandate
of Section 24 of NDPS Act, which
prescribes for punishment to any person
who is involved for external dealing in
narcotic and psychotropic substance in
contravention of Section 12. Section 24 of
NDPS Act reads as:

"Punishment
for
external
dealings
in
narcotic
drugs
and
psychotropic substances in contravention
of section 12.- Whoever engages in or
controls any trade whereby a narcotic drug
or a psychotropic substance is obtained
outside India and supplied to any person
outside
India
without
the
previous
authorisation of the Central Government or
otherwise than in accordance with the
conditions (if any) of such authorisation
granted under section 12, shall be
686 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
punishable with rigorous imprisonment for
a term which shall not be less than ten
years but which may extend to twenty years
and shall also be liable to fine which shall
not be less than one lakh rupees but may
extend to two lakh rupees:

Provided that the court may, for
reasons to be recorded in the judgment,
impose a fine exceeding two lakh rupees."

13. He argues that Section 24 of
NDPS Act can never be read in isolation
has to be read in conjunction with Section
12 and once the condition of Section 12 are
prima-facie not invokable, Section 24
would have no relevance. He next argues
that even if for the sake of arguments, all
the allegations are treated to be true, the
manner in which a belief has been formed
with regard to quantity ceased is solely
wrong as the chemical Tramadol is always
quantified in milligrams whereas, in the
present
case,
no
such
exercise
of
quantifying the chemical Tramadol was
done and quantification was solely based
upon the weight of the Tramadol which is
contrary to law laid down in case of
Union of India Vs. Balmukund and Ors.
2009 (12) SCC 161. He lastly argues that
the applicant has no previous criminal
antecedents and should be enlarged on
bail.

14.

Learned
AGA
vehemently
opposes the bail application by arguing that
it is well settled that the mandate of Section
37 of the NDPS Act has to be satisfied
before grant of bail and condition as
prescribed under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) have
necessarily to be taken into consideration
while considering the bail application,
Section 37 of the NDPS Act reads as under
:

"37. Offences to be cognizable
and non-bailable.-

(1)
Notwithstanding
anything
contained in the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),-

(a) every offence punishable
under this Act shall be cognizable;

(b) no person accused of an
offence punishable for 2[offences under
section 19 or section 24 or section 27A and
also for offences involving commercial
quantity] shall be released on bail or on his
own bond unless-

(i) the Public Prosecutor has
been given an opportunity to oppose the
application for such release, and

(ii) where the Public Prosecutor
opposes the application, the court is
satisfied that there are reasonable grounds
for believing that he is not guilty of such
offence and that he is not likely to commit
any offence while on bail.

(2) The limitations on granting of
bail specified in clause (b) of sub-section
(1) are in addition to the limitations under
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of
1974) or any other law for the time being in
force, on granting of bail.?

15. The conditions prescribed under
Section 37(1)(b)(ii) are essentially to be
seen in respect of the offences under
Sections 24 and also for the offence
involving commercial quantity. The phrase
"reasonable ground for believing that he
is not guilty" "for consideration before the
Supreme Court in case of Mohd Muslim
@ Hussain vs State (Nct Of Delhi) 2023
Live Law (SC) 260, wherein the Supreme
Court had occasion to consider the scope of
the
phrase
'Reasonable
ground'
the
Supreme Court held as under :-

"18. The conditions which courts
have to be cognizant of are that there are
7 All. Salman Hashmi Vs. State of U.P.
687
reasonable grounds for believing that the
accused is ?not guilty of such offence? and
that he is not likely to commit any offence
while on bail. What is meant by ?not
guilty? when all the evidence is not before
the court? It can only be prima facie
determination. That places the court?s
discretion within a very narrow margin.
Given the mandate of the general law on
bails (Sections 436, 437 and439,CrPC)
which classify offences based on their
gravity, and instruct that certain serious
crimes have to be dealt with differently
while
considering
bail
applications,
the
additional condition that the court should be
satisfied that the accused (who is in law
presumed to be innocent) is not guilty, has to be
interpreted reasonably. Further the classification
of offences underSpecial Acts (NDPS Act, etc.),
which apply over and above the ordinary bail
conditions required to be assessed by courts,
require that the court records its satisfaction that
the accused might not be guilty of the offence and
that upon release, they are not likely to commit
any offence. These two conditions have the effect
of overshadowing other conditions. In cases
where bail is sought, the court assesses the
material on record such as the nature of the
offence, likelihood of the accused co-operating
with the investigation, not fleeing from justice:
even in serious offences like murder, kidnapping,
rape, etc. On the other hand, the court in these
cases under such special Acts, have to address
itself principally on two facts: likely guilt of the
accused and the likelihood of them not
committing any offence upon release. This court
has generally upheld such conditions on the
ground that liberty of such citizens have to - in
cases when accused of offences enacted under
special laws ? be balanced against the public
interest.

19.
A
plain
and
literal
interpretation
of
the
conditions
underSection 37 (i.e., that Court should be
satisfied that the accused is not guilty and
would not commit any offence) would
effectively exclude grant of bail altogether,
resulting
in
punitive
detention
and
unsanctioned preventive detention as well.
Therefore, the only manner in which such
special conditions as enacted underSection
37 can be considered within constitutional
parameters is where the court is reasonably
satisfied on a prima facie look at the
material on record (whenever the bail
application is made) that the accused is not
guilty. Any other interpretation, would
result in complete denial of the bail to a
person accused of offences such as those
enacted underSection 37 of the NDPS Act.

20. The standard to be considered
therefore, is one, where the court would
look at the material in a broad manner, and
reasonably see whether the accused?s guilt
may be proved. The judgments of this court
have,
therefore,
emphasized
that
the
satisfaction which courts are expected to
record, i.e., that the accused may not be
guilty, is only prima facie, based on a
reasonable reading, which does not call for
meticulous examination of the materials
collected during investigation (as held
inUnion of India v. Rattan Malik19). Grant
of bail on ground of undue delay in trial,
cannot be said to be fettered bySection 37
of the Act, given the imperative ofSection
436Awhich is applicable to offences under
theNDPS Act too (ref. Satender Kumar
Antil supra). Having 19 (2009) 2 SCC
624regard to these factors the court is of
the opinion that in the facts of this case, the
appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail."

16. As regards the second part of the
twin conditions, he argues that once the
applicant has no criminal antecedents, the
finding has to be recorded based upon the
criminal antecedents as held by the
Supreme
Court
in
(Ranjitsingh
688 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Brahmajeetsing Sharma vs. State of
Maharashtra and Another) (2005) 5 SCC
294.

17. Considering the said twin
conditions, as regards, the reasonable
ground for believing that the applicant is
not guilty, on the analysis of the Section 12,
23 and 24 of the NDPS Act, as submitted
by learned counsel for applicant and
recorded above, prima-facie there is no
allegation that the applicant used to import
from outside and sell outside except for the
confessional statement under Section 67
Cr.P.C. The alleged recovery of Tramadol,
itself demonstrates that the offence under
Section 12 cannot be said to be made out
merely by recovery of Tramadol at the
instance and pointing out the applicant as
alleged in the FIR. The requirements of
Section 23 are also prima-facie not fulfilled
in terms of the allegations leveled in the
FIR as there is no material to allege that
any legal import was made into India or
export from India by the applicant. Once
the allegations of Section 12 are not made
out, prima-facie the offence punishable
under Section 24 of the NDPS Act may not
also be sustained in the trial, thus, I have
reasons to believe that prima-facie the
applicant is not guilty of the offence and
the prosecution may not be able to establish
the guilt at the time of trial as held by the
Supreme Court in case of Mohd Muslim
@ Hussain (supra).

18. The argument of the learned
AGA is that certain chats were discovered
from the mobile phone and list of buyers
were discovered from the mobile phone.
Recovery of said chat and list, however,
alone cannot be sufficient to allege the
import
and
export
from
India
or
purchase/sale outside India solely based
upon the recovery of the Tramadol, thus,
I have no hesitation in holding that the
prosecution, with the evidence may not
be able to sustain the trial.

19. It is clarified that these
observations made are tentative and the
Trial Court should not be influenced by
these observations recorded which are
being recorded only for considering the
bail at this stage.

20. The second condition of the twin
conditions prescribed under Section 37,
can also be recorded in favour of the
applicant as he has no previous criminal
antecedents, thus, on both the grounds
coupled with the fact that the applicant
does not have any criminal antecedent is
entitled to be enlarged on bail. Apart from
the conditions of bail specified there
under, the applicant shall also surrender
his passport and shall not leave India
without the permission of the Court
concerned.

21. Let the applicant Salman
Hashmi be released on bail in Case
Crime No.0178 of 2023 under Section
419, 420 IPC read with section 66 of the
I.T. Act and under Sectin 12, 23 and 24 of
NDPS
Act,
P.S.-Wazirganj,
DistrictLucknow subject to his furnishing a
personal bond and two reliable sureties
each of the like amount to the satisfaction
of the court below concerned with the
following conditions:

(a) The applicant shall execute a
bond to undertake to attend the hearings;

(b) The applicant shall not
commit any offence similar to the offence
of which he is accused or suspected of the
commission; and

(c) 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
7 All. Ram Prem & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
689
him from disclosing such facts to the Court
or to any police officer or tamper with the
evidence.
----------
(2023) 7 ILRA 689
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 18.07.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 12441 of
2022

Ram Prem & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicants:
Ranjeet Kumar, Desh Mitra Anand

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
G.A.

Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,1973 - Section 437 -Application
under Section 439 Cr.P.C. cannot be entertained
for the reason that the applicants are not in
custody-applicants were granted liberty to
appear before the Magistrate and file a fresh
application under Section 437 Cr.P.C.-rejectedapplicants filed an application under Section 437
Cr.P.C. seeking their release on bail in the
aforesaid case-rejected after recording that the
applicants were not present before the Court.
The non-bailable warrants issued against the
applicants - returned by the police with a report
that the same could not be served upon the
applicants- evading service. mere appearance or
being brought before the Court is necessary for
his request for being released on bail and the
Section does not lay down any further
mandatory condition- granted liberty to file a
fresh application under Section 437 Cr.P.C.

Application disposed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:
1. Satendra Kumar Antil Vs Central Bureau of
Investigation, (2021) 10 SCC 773

2. St. of Mah. Vs Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak,
(1982) 2 SCC 463

3. Bhavnagar University Vs Palitana Sugar Mills
Pvt. Ltd. Vs & anr., (2003) 2 SCC 111

4. Niranjan Singh Vs Prabhakar Rajaram
Kharote, (1980) 2 SCC 559

5. Sundeep Kumar Bafna Vs St. of Mah., (2014)
16 SCC 623

6. Gurcharan Singh Vs St. (Delhi Admn.), (1978)
1 SCC 118 : 1978 SCC (Cri) 41

7. St. of Haryana Vs Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1)
SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426

8. Satender Kumar Antil Vs CBI, (2021) 10 SCC 773

9. Siddharth Vs St. of U.P., (2022) 1 SCC 676 :
(2022) 1 SCC (Cri) 423

10. Satender Kumar Antil Vs Central Bureau of
Investigation Vs& anr., 2023 SCC OnLine SC
452/SC 758

(Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

1. Heard Sri. Desh Mitra Anand
Advocate, assisted by Sri. Utkarsh Anand
Advocate, the learned Counsel for the
applicants, Sri. Kuldeep Pati Tripathi, the
learned Additional Advocate General, who
is assisted by Sri. Rao Narendra Singh, the
learned A.G.A.-I and Sri. Chinmay Shukla
for the State.

2. By means of the present application,
the applicants have prayed for grant of bail to
them in Case Crime No. 105/2021 under
Sections 147, 148, 149, 308, 323, 325, 427,
452, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station
Nagram, District Lucknow.

3. The F.I.R. was lodged by the
informant Rajaram at 14:04 on 05.05.2021