Allowed

Vineet v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC13 Nov 2018BAIL/40169/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous bail application, the court allowed the bail plea for Vineet, an accused charged with drug smuggling under the N.D.P.S. Act, considering the lack of independent prosecution witnesses and non-compliance with statutory search and seizure provisions.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to standard conditions.

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

¶1

Court No. - 27 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 40169 of 2018 Applicant :- Vineet Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shravan Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶3

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

¶4

According to prosecution case, on 24.7.2018 accused Bhola was arrested by the police with 125 packets (pudiya) smack and accused Vineet was arrested by the police with 125 packets (pudiya) smack.

¶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 24.7.2018 (more than three and half 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 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 Vineet involved in Case Crime No. 1218 of 2018, under Section 18/20 NDPS Act, Police Station Sector 20 Noida, District - Gautam Budh Nagar 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 :- 13.11.2018//A. Singh

Vineet v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vineet 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

Shoeb Chisti Vs State of U.P.

Dilip Kharwar Neta Vs State of U.P.

Mahboob Vs State of U.P.

Rajesh Vs State of U.P.

Bantu and Another Vs State of U.P.

Raj Gagan Vs State of U.P.