Allowed

Banti Yadav v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC27 Sept 2018BAIL/37067/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an NDPS bail application, the Court allowed the release of the applicant on personal and surety bonds. Though the Court did not express an opinion on the merits, it found the case fit for bail considering the gravity of the offence and period of custody.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicant on personal bond and two sureties subject to specific conditions including no tampering with evidence and non-commission of similar offences.

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

¶1

Court No. - 41

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 37067 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Banti Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rahul Kumar Tripathi,Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava 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 prosecution case, seven accused persons namely Banti, Sanjesh Kumar Yadav, Bijendra, Santdas Guru Durgodas, Jaiveer Singh, Gurendra and Suresh were arrested by the police on 11.06.2018 and from the possession of accused Banti, 249 gram, from the possession of accused Sanjesh Kumar Yadav 86 gram, from the possession of accused Bijendra 237 gram, from the possession of accused Santdas Guru Durgidas 98 gram, from the possession of accused Jaiveer Singh 95 gram, from the possession of accused Gurendra 118 gram and from the possession of accused Suresh 96 gram mixture of kokin and ganja were recovered.

¶7

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. Co-accused namely Jaiveer has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 24.7.2018 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 27463 of 2018, since the role of the applicant is not distinguishable with the role of co-accused, therefore, the applicant is also entitled for bail. 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. has not been complied with. The applicant is languishing in jail since 11.06.2018 (more than three and halfmonths) 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.

¶8

Learned A.G.A opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid fact as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant and admitted that there is no criminal history.

¶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 Banti Yadav involved in Case Crime No.400 of 2018, under section 8/21/22 N.D.P.S. Act, Police station Raya, District Mathura, 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;

¶11

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

¶12

The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶13

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

¶14

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.

¶15

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.

¶16

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

¶17

Order Date :- 27.9.2018 A. Singh

Banti Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Banti 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shivam Srivastava Vs State of U.P.

Bhagwan Sahai and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Munish Kumar Vs State of U.P.and Another

Imran and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

Masroor Vs State of U.P.

Sunny Thakur Vs State of U.P.