Allowed

Rinku Sharma v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC26 Sept 2019BAIL/25645/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Criminal Misc. Bail Application involved an applicant accused of offences under Sections 8/22 of the N.D.P.S. Act. The High Court allowed the bail application, noting non-compliance of statutory mandates, false recovery allegations, and lack of casus non bailable, while standardizing trial conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Rinku Sharma released on bail on personal bond and two sureties subject to standard conditions.

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

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25645 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Rinku Sharma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Gyan Prakash Ojha,V.K. Baranwal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.

¶5

Counter affidavit filed on behalf of State is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned Counsel for applicant, learned AGA for State and perused the material available on record.

¶7

Accused-applicant, involved in Case Crime No.65 of 2019, under Sections 8/22 N.D.P.S Act, Police Station Kheraganj, District Agra, applied for bail.

¶8

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 28.03.2019. 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.

¶9

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 450 gm Alprazolam power for which he had no valid license.

¶10

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.

¶11

Accordingly, bail application is allowed.

¶12

Let applicant Rinku Sharma 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:-

¶13

The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

¶14

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.

¶15

During trial, he shall not indulge in any criminal activities or case.

¶16

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.

¶17

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.

¶18

Order Date :- 26.9.2019 I.A.Siddiqui

Rinku Sharma v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rinku Sharma 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

Vikas Vs State of U.P.

Bharat Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Ratan Singh Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Rukhsana Vs State of U.P.

Aneesh Ahmad @ Kannu @ Sonu Vs State of U.P.

Arsad Vs State of U.P.