Allowed

Mahendra Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC1 Nov 2018BAIL/27866/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application, the court released the applicant on bail in a case involving illegal medicines under the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and Drugs and Cosmetics Act, noting identical circumstances with co-accused already granted bail.

What did the court decide?

The applicant Mahendra Singh be released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each, subject to standard bail conditions including appearance in court and non-interference with eviden

Mahendra Singh Vs State of U.P. — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 27

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27866 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Mahendra Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shobhit Pathak,Yadvesh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

According to the prosecution case, F.I.R. was lodged against five accused persons namely, Saleem Ahmad, Deepanshu Tomar, Neeraj Sharma, Mahendra Singh and Himanshu Jaiswal alleging that on 27.03.2018 they were arrested by the police and illegal medicines were recovered. On the statement of Saleem Ahmad, he purchased medicines from Himanshu Tomar. Accused Himanshu Tomar has stated that he purchased medicines from accused Neeraj Sharma and Neeraj Sharma has stated that he purchased medicines from Mahendra Singh. During investigation name of Narendra Singh was called for.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the co-accusedDeepanshu Tomar, Neeraj Sharma & Saleem Ahmad have been enlarged on bail by co-oridnate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 19.6.2018, 22.6.2018,22.6.2018 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 22468 of 2018, 22810 of 2018 & 23071 of 2018 and the case of the applicant is identical to the case of co-accused who has been enlarged on bail; hence the applicant is also entitled for the same benefit. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that name of this accused was disclosed from the confessional statement of co-accused before the police personnel. There is no legal evidence against the applicant. The applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He is languishing in jail since 28.3.2018 (more than seven months); having no criminal history and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.

¶8

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid fact as argued by learned counsel for the applicant and admitted that the applicant has no criminal history. The case of the applicant is identical to the case of co-accused-Deepanshu Tomar, Neeraj Sharma & Saleem Ahmad, which has been explained.

¶9

Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties, facts of the case, nature of allegation and period of custody, gravity of offence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed.

¶10

Let the applicant Mahendra Singh involved in Case Crime No.0255 of 2018, under Sections 274, 275, 276 I.P.C. and Section 18/27 of Drugs and Cosmetics Act and Sections 21, 22, 24 & 25 of Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, P.S. Hasanpur, District Amroha, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like

¶11

amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:

¶12

The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶13

The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶14

The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶15

The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶16

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.

¶17

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.

¶18

Order Date :- 1.11.2018

¶19

SKD

Mahendra Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahendra Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anis Vs State of U.P.

Bhoora @ Bhoore Vs State of U.P.

Mumtaj and Another Vs State of U.P.

Furkan Vs State of U.P.

Sita Ram @ Nan Dadu and Another Vs State of U.P.

Santosh Kori Vs State of U.P.