Allowed

Hariom v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC18 Sept 2019BAIL/10882/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In bail application under the NDPS Act, the High Court allowed the applicant's bail pending trial, accepting that no merit commentary was made but granting relief considering detention duration and lack of flight risk, subject to strict conditions and a one-year trial mandate.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail with personal bond, two reliable sureties, and undertaking to comply with strict conditions and expedite trial within one year.

Hariom Vs State of U.P. — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10882 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Hariom Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pramod Kumar Dwivedi,Pankaj Sharma,Prashant Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.

¶5

Counter affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶6

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

¶7

Accused-applicant, involved in Case Crime No. 1034 of 2018, under Section 21/22 N.D.P.S Act, Police Station Kotwali Hathras, District Hathras, applied for bail.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Nothing has been recovered from the possession of the applicant. Alleged recovery is false and fake. It is further submitted that mandatory provision of N.D.P.S. Act has not been complied with at the time of alleged recovery. No public witness was taken at the time of recovery. The criminal history of the applicant has been properly explained in para-7 of the accompanying affidavit. Applicant is in jail since 29.12.2018. It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant's fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but did not dispute the factual submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submitted that applicant has been arrested with the possession of 1 kg diazapam powder and the alleged recovery is much more than the commercial quantity.

¶10

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, rival contention of learned counsel for the parties, detention of applicant in jail, severity of punishment in case of conviction, alleged recovery from the possession of the accused-applicant and without commenting upon the merit

¶11

of the case, applicant deserves bail.

¶12

Accordingly, bail application is allowed .

¶13

Let applicant Hariom be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties and filing an undertaking to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:-

¶14

The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

¶15

The applicant shall co-operate with the trial and shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for charge, evidence when the witnesses are present in the court, statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and argument.

¶16

During trial, he shall not indulge in any criminal activities.

¶17

In breach of any condition enumerated above, Trial Court shall be at liberty to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶18

However, it is provided that Trial Court shall expedite and conclude the trial within one year from the date of production of certified copy of this order without granting unnecessary adjournment, if there is no legal impediment.

¶19

Order Date :- 18.9.2019 SKS

Hariom v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hariom 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

Arman Alias Faijan Vs State of U.P.

Javed Vs State of U.P.

Salman Vs State of U.P.

Mohd. Yusuf Vs State of U.P.

Sanju Vs State of U.P. and another

Riyaz and Another Vs State of U.P.