The court granted bail to Laxman Yadav who was accused of possession of heroine. Despite concerns about procedural lapses in recovery, bail was allowed with conditions ensuring attendance and prohibiting abuse of liberty.
The applicant was released on bail by furnishing a personal bond with two local sureties, subject to specific conditions.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 69
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16875 of 2018
Applicant :- Laxman Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ganesh Shanker Srivastava,Deepak Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Abhinav Prasad, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State.
It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that 591 grams contraband article, i.e., Heroine (Smack) 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 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. The applicant is in jail since 19.12.2017.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and 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, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.
Let the applicant Laxman Yadav involved in Case Crime No.3418 of 2017, under Section 8/21 N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station Shoratgarh, District Siddharth Nagar be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two local sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following condition:-
(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 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.
(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.
(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.
Order Date :- 7.1.2019 Dev/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail given the non-compliance of mandatory provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act and the nature of the accusation involving heroine.
Whether the conditions imposed for granting bail are sufficient to ensure the applicant's presence during the trial.
5 provisions across 3 enactments
Laxman Yadav
State Of U.P.
Vivek Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
