Allowed

Monu Bansal v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC11 Mar 2019BAIL/3601/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge allowed bail to the applicant in a charge of possessing charas under the N.D.P.S. Act, noting that recovery violated Sections 42 and 50. The court issued a personal bond with two sureties of Rs. Two Lacs each, imposing conditions to prevent misuse of liberty.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to applicant on personal bond with two sureties (Rs. Two Lacs each), subject to conditions prohibiting adjournments and requiring personal presence for all court dates.

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

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3601 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Monu Bansal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Akash Tyagi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Counter affidavit filed on behalf of State and supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of applicant both are taken on record.

¶6

Heard Sri Akash Tyagi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sanjay Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State.

¶7

It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that 1 Kg. contraband article, i.e., Charas 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 and 50 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 07.11.2018. It is further submitted that the criminal history of the applicant has properly been explained in para 13 to the affidavit filed in support of bail application and para 3 to the supplementary affidavit.

¶8

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

¶9

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.

¶10

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case let the applicant Monu Bansal involved in Case Crime No. 563 of 2018, under Section 8 read with Section 20 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985, Police Station Sadar Bazar, District Meerut be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties (Rs. Two Lacs each) (One should be of a family member) each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, with the following conditions:-

¶11

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.

¶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 :- 11.3.2019 Arti

Monu Bansal v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Monu Bansal 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

Nazim and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

Anamulla @ Abdulla Vs State of U.P.

Naushad Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Tamanna @ Kallo Vs State of U.P.

Anvar Vs State of U.P.

Mohd. Umar Vs State of U.P.