Allowed

Avid v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC29 Mar 2019BAIL/12999/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 12999 of 2019, the court granted bail to applicant Avid charged with offences under Sections 21/22 N.D.P.S. Act for possession of Diazepam, noting procedural lapses in recovery and lack of prior criminal history.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted with personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions of appearance, no adjournments during evidence, and no misuse of bail.

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

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12999 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Avid Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Som Veer Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Som Veer, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms. Poonam Singh Sengar, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State.

¶6

It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that 600 gram contraband article, i.e., Diazepam 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, 50, 51 & 57 of the N.D.P.S. Act, hence the recovery is bad in the eyes of law. The applicant has no criminal history with respect to the N.D.P.S. Act. It has also been submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 06.01.2019. Criminal history of the applicant has properly been explained in para 15 to the affidavit filed in support of bail application.

¶7

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

¶8

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.

¶9

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case let the applicant Avid involved in Case Crime No. 05 of 2019, under Section 21/22 N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station Raya, District Mathura be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, with the following conditions:-

¶10

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

¶11

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.

¶12

(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.

¶13

(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.

¶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 :- 29.3.2019 Arti

Avid v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Avid 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

Ibrahim Vs State of U.P.

Faisal Vs State of U.P.

Meharban @ Rabbal Vs State of U.P.

Sheebu Vs State of U.P.

Sarwar @ Titu Vs State of U.P.

Faizan Vs State of U.P.