Allowed

Veeru v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC16 Nov 2018BAIL/43677/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 43677 of 2018, the Hon'ble Court allowed bail for the applicant Veeru, accused of possessing ganja, by directing his release on personal bond and two sureties under the NDPS Act, emphasizing lack of independent witnesses and no criminal history.

What did the court decide?

Revealed on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties each in like amount subject to conditions against tampering, intimidation, and committing similar offences.

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

¶1

Court No. - 27 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 43677 of 2018 Applicant :- Veeru Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Kumar Verma,Shri Ram (Rawat) 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 21.8.2018, accused Veeru was arrested by the police with two kg. ganja; accused Monu was arrested by the police with 120 grams alprazolam and accused Suhel was arrested by the police with on knife.

¶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 21.8.2018 (near about three 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 Veeru involved in Case Crime No. 918 of 2018, under Section 8/20 NDPS Act, Police Station New Agra, District - Agra 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 :- 16.11.2018//A. Singh

Veeru v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Veeru 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

Akram Vs State of U.P.

Sartaj Vs State of U.P.

Mursaleen @ Pampa Vs State of U.P.

Mahfooz Vs State of U.P.

Yasin Vs State of U.P.

Islamuddin Vs State of U.P.