Allowed

Ravindra v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC9 Jul 2018BAIL/7419/2018

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 prayer despite procedural lapses by the prosecution. Relying on parity with a co-accused, the court directed release on personal bond and sureties with standard conditions to prevent tampering and intimidation.

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount on payment of showing of satisfaction of the court concerned with standard conditions.

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

¶1

Court No. - 41

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7419 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Ravindra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajeev 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 the prosecution case, the F.I.R. was lodged against the applicant, namely, Ravindra alleging that on 20.11.2017 Ravindra and Rajan were arrested by the police and 550 grams of Alfazolam Powder was recovered from the possession of each of the accused.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that 550 Gram Alfazolam Powder is alleged to have been recovered. It is further submitted that since such recovery is not supported by independent witness, possibility of his false implication in the crime cannot be ruled out. It is next contended that in the present case the prosecution has failed to follow strictly the provisions of Sections 41, 42, 50, 52, 53 and 57(2) of the N.D.P.S. Act. There is no report of chemical analyst. It is also argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present crime with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and victimize him. The role of the applicant is identical to that of the co-accused, namely, Rajan, who has been granted bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 18.06.2018 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1684 of 2018, hence he is also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. The applicant is in jail since 20.11.2017. In case the applicant is released on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶8

Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid fact as argued by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶9

Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the fact that the identically placed co-accused has already been released on bail by this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that it is a fit case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶10

Let the applicant Ravindra involved in Case Crime No. 1167 of 2017, under Section 21/22 N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station Vrindaban, 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 with the 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 :- 9.7.2018 NS

Ravindra v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravindra 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

Narpat and Others Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Rekha Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mahendra Prasad Vs State of U.P.

Dinesh Vs State of U.P.

Babloo Vs State of U.P.

Baba Sanatan Das Vs State of U.P. and Anr.