Allowed

Prince Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC16 Oct 2019BAIL/40526/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail application was adjudicated by Hon'ble Bachchoo Lal, J., who granted bail to the applicant accused under Section 21/22 of the N.D.P.S. Act. The court noted claims of false recovery and failure to issue Section 50 warnings but did not express an opinion on the merits, deeming it a fit case for bail with personal bond and two sureties. The bail was granted subject to standard conditions ag

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in a like amount, subject to conditions against tampering with evidence or intimidating witnesses and cooperation with trial.

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

¶1

Court No. - 41 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 40526 of 2019 Applicant :- Prince Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Brijesh Kumar Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Bachchoo Lal,J.

¶3

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

¶4

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case showing the recovery of 90 gram Alprazolam powder which is below to the commercial quantity. False recovery has been planted against the applicant. There is no independent witness of the alleged recovery. The real fact is that the applicant is living in Sakin Mohalla Siddeekpur, District Jaunpur and engaged in the business of selling paper, magazine and neem timbers which are meant for brushing teeth in railway station area. One day some G.R.P. constables of police station G.R.P. Jaunpur visited him and demanded some illegal gratification in shape of money which was refused by the applicant. The police personal threatened the applicant to implicate in some false criminal cases and in the night of 17.7.2019 they had forcibly taken him from the out side of Railway Station compound and falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant has not committed the alleged offence. The mandatory provision of Section 50 of N.D.P. S. Act has not been complied with. There is no criminal history of the applicant and he is in jail since 18.7.2019.

¶5

Per contra, learned A.G.A opposed the prayer for bail.

¶6

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.

¶7

Let the applicant Prince Singh involved in Case Crime No. 64 of 2019, under Section 21/22 of N.D.P.S. Act, P.S. (Thana) G.R.P., District Jaunpur be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶8

The applicant will not tamper with the evidences.

¶9

The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and cooperate with the trial.

¶10

The applicant will appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court unless personal appearance is exempted by the court concerned.

¶11

In case of breach of any conditions mentioned above, the trial court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail of the applicant.

¶12

Order Date :- 16.10.2019/A.

Prince Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prince Singh 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

Kinna @ Ved Prakash Vs State of U.P.

Kedar Singh Vs State of U.P.

Surendra Vs State

Madan Vs State of U.P.

Saminder Vs State of U.P.

Raj Kumar Patel Vs State of U.P.