Allowed

Kapil @ Sintu v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC23 Sept 2019BAIL/19191/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application filed by an applicant charged under the NDPS Act. Following the applicant's submission of innocence and lack of criminal history, and without commenting on the case's merits, the court granted bail subject to specific conditions and directed the trial court to expedite proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties subject to conditions against tampering with evidence and engaging in criminal activities.

Kapil @ Sintu Vs State of U.P. — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 19191 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Kapil @ Sintu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Syed Ali Imam,Sanjeev Kumar Pandey

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.

¶6

Counter affidavit has been filed by State, is taken on record.

¶7

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

¶8

Accused-applicant, involved in Case Crime No.329 of 2018, under Section 8/20 N.D.P.S Act, Police Station Greater Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar, applied for bail.

¶9

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. Applicant is in jail since 10.12.2018 and he has no criminal history. 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.

¶10

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 2 Kg Charas for which he had no valid license.

¶11

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 of the case, applicant deserves bail.

¶12

Accordingly, bail application is allowed .

¶13

Let applicant Kapil @ Sintu 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 or case.

¶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. Order Date :- 23.9.2019 Manoj

Kapil @ Sintu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kapil @ Sintu 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

Subhan Vs State of U.P.

Virendra Arya Vs State of U.P.

Rajesh Bhardwaj and Another Vs State of U.P.

Jitendra Singh @ Joti Vs State of U.P.

Ranjay Kumar Maurya Vs State of U.P.

Reshma Vs State of U.P.