Allowed

Mohd. Imran v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC9 Apr 2019BAIL/12887/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hearing a bail application under Sections 21/22 of the NDPS Act where prosecution alleged recovery of diazepam. The applicant argued false implication due to lack of independent witness and non-compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act. The court granted bail with conditions without adjudicating on merits.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail with personal bond and two sureties; conditions imposed against tampering with evidence, seeking adjournments, and committing new crimes.

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

¶1

Court No. - 42

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12887 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Mohd. Imran Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rahul Kumar Tripathi,Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishna Pratap Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that 350 grams of diazapam is alleged to have been recovered from the possession of the applicant. In fact no such recovery was effected from the applicant. 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 Section 50 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 applicant who is in jail since 17.2.2019 having no criminal history to his credit, deserves to be released on bail. In case the applicant is released on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶8

Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage who is involved in supplying contraband, therefore, the applicant does not deserve any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activity.

¶9

Without expressing any opinion on the merits, let the applicant Mohd. Imran, involved in case crime No. 103 of 2019, under section 21/22 of NDPS Act, PS Delhi Gate, district Aligarh, be released on bail

¶10

on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that :-

¶11

The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶12

The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶13

The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶14

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶15

Order Date :- 9.4.2019 Ishrat

Mohd. Imran v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Imran 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

Harish Chandra and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P.

Sujit Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P.

Javed Kuraishi Vs State of U.P.

Divya Malay Singh @ D.M. Vs State of U.P.

Surendra Vs State of U.P.

Ajay @ Aslam Vs State of U.P.