Allowed

Setwan Yadav v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC10 Aug 2018BAIL/30203/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under the N.D.P.S. Act, the High Court allowed the applicant's petition despite the nature of the offence. The court noted a lack of independent witnesses, minimal recovery relative to commercial quantities, and non-compliance with Section 50 of the Act.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in an amount acceptable to the trial court.

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

¶1

Court No. - 41 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30203 of 2018 Applicant :- Setwan Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kuber Singh Yadav,Satya Dheer Singh Jadaun Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶3

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri R.K. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶4

According to prosecution case, on 7.7.2018 accused Setwan Yadav was arrested by the police with 86 grams heroin and accused Balwant Yadav was arrested by the police with 149 grams Heroin .

¶5

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. There is no independent witness to support the prosecution version. The recovery shown by the Police is less than the commercial quantity. Provisions enumerated in the N.D.P.S. Act for search and seizure have not been followed. Provision of Section 50 N.D.P.S. Act has not been complied with. Applicant is languishing in jail since 7.7.2018 (more than one month) having no criminal history and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial.

¶6

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 applicant has no criminal history.

¶7

Keeping in view the quantity of recovered contraband, nature of the offence, provisions for release of accused on bail, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, and submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶8

Let the applicant Setwan Yadav involved in Case Crime No. 132 of 2018, under Section 8/21 NDPS Act, Police Station Sidhari, District - Azamgarh be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:

¶9

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

¶10

The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶11

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

¶12

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.

¶13

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.

¶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 :- 10.8.2018//A. Singh

Setwan Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Setwan Yadav 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

Alam Vs State of U.P.

Santosh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Bhola Vs State of U.P. and Another

Khushbuddin Khan Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Munshi @ Salim Vs State of U.P.

Ravi Vs State of U.P.