Allowed

Guddu Dome v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC28 Nov 2018BAIL/41845/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court dismissed bail application challenging recovery of Alprazolam powder under NDPS Act. Bench held recovery invalid due to non-compliance with Sections 42 and 50. Granted bail with personal bond and two sureties under strict conditions to ensure trial attendance and prevent misuse of bail.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail by furnishing personal bond with two local sureties under specified conditions including attendance and no adjournments.

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

¶1

Court No. - 62

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 41845 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Guddu Dome Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajiv Chowdhury Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Sri Rajiv Chowdhary, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Abhinav Prasad, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State.

¶7

It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that 120 .gram. 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 42 and 50 of N.D.P.S. Act, hence the recovery is bad in the eyes of law. It has also been submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 6.8.2018. The applicant has no other reported criminal antecedent.

¶8

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

¶9

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.

¶10

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case let the applicant Guddu Dome involved in Case Crime No. 64 of 2018, under Sections 8/21/22 N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station G.R.P.City, District Varanasi be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two local sureties each to the satisfaction of the court concreted with the following conditions:-

¶11

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.

¶12

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

¶13

(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.

¶14

(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.

¶15

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

¶16

Order Date :- 28.11.2018 IA

Guddu Dome v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Guddu Dome 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

Taufique Vs State of U.P.

Rashid Vs State of U.P.

Ram Chander Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Salman Vs State of U.P.

Suleman @ Khotiya Vs State of U.P.

Pramod Vs State of U.P.