Allowed

Parvej v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC26 Nov 2018BAIL/29428/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court granted bail to the applicant in a drug possession case under Sections 8/21 of the N.D.P.S. Act. The court emphasized the reformative theory of punishment and lack of prior history, imposing conditions regarding court attendance and non-abuse of bail proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant on bail with a personal bond along with two sureties of Rs. One Lac each.

Parvej Vs State of U.P. — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 62

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29428 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Parvej Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ramesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Ramesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. appearing for the State.

¶6

It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The contraband article, i.e., Alprazolam powder is said to have been recovered from the possession of the applicant. He further submits that there is no compliance of mandatory provisions of Sections 50 and 57 of N.D.P.S. Act, hence the recovery is bad in the eyes of law. The applicant has no criminal history with respect to the N.D.P.S. Act. It has also been submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 06.06.2018. The applicant has no other reported criminal antecedent.

¶7

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail.

¶8

Considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tempering of the witnesses and prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge and reformative theory of punishment , the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

¶9

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case let the applicant Parvej involved in Case Crime No.922 of 2018, under Section 8/21 N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station Loni, District Ghaziabad be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties (Rs. One Lac each) (One should be of a family member) with the following conditions:-

¶10

i) 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. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on

¶11

each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶12

(iii) 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. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶13

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶14

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

¶15

Order Date :- 26.11.2018 Shahroz

Parvej v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parvej 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jarif Ahmad and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Kaushilya Vs State of U.P. and another

Shivangi and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ibrahim Vs State of U.P.

Waseem @ Dakhni Vs State of U.P.

Gopal Verma Vs State of U.P.