Allowed

Sanju v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC8 Jan 2019BAIL/21160/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail was granted to Sanju in a narcotics possession case involving one kilogram of Alprazolam. The court cited alleged procedural lapses in recovery and weighing but ruled without expressing a merit opinion, imposing strict conditions for bail to remain valid.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicant on personal bond and two local sureties on strict conditions regarding court attendance and non-interference with proceedings.

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

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 21160 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Sanju Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shree Prakash Giri,Ram Om Vikram Singh Chauhan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Abhinav Prasad, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶6

It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that one kilogram Alprazolam is alleged to have been recovered from the possession of the applicant, when in fact no such recovery has taken place. It is next contended that it is not known as to how the weighment of allegedly recovered substance was done and 900 grams in excess to the commercial quantity has been found. There is no independent witness of the alleged recovery. Learned counsel for the applicant further contended that mandatory provisions of N.D.P.S Act has not been complied with in the present case. It is next contended that the applicant does not have criminal history prior to lodging of the present case. It is next contended that there are no chances of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence. It is further contended that the applicant has no criminal history and the applicant is in jail since 1.4.2018 and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶7

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

¶8

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also perusing the material on record, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, let the applicant Sanju , involved in Case Crime No.404 of 2018, under Sections 8/22 of N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station Jagdishpura, District Agra be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned on the following conditions that:-

¶9

(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.

¶10

(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.

¶11

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and

¶12

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 default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the order granting bail shall automatically stand cancelled.

¶15

Order Date :- 8.1.2019 Dev/-

Sanju v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanju 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

Shiva Parashar Vs State of U.P.

Laxman Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Somveer Vs State of U.P.

Bhola @ Layak Singh Vs State of U.P.

Ibban Khan Vs State of U.P.

Sanjay Yadav Vs State of U.P.