Allowed

Arvind Kumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC9 Jan 2019BAIL/41486/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court granted bail to an applicant accused of offences under the N.D.P.S. Act and U.P. Gangsters Act, rejecting the argument that Section 50 N.D.P.S. non-compliance bars bail. Bail conditions imposed included personal bond, sureties, and strict attendance requirements.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is enlarged on bail by executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties subject to specific conditions regarding court attendance and conduct.

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

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 41486 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Arvind Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Behari Saxena Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

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

¶6

Heard Sri R.B.Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant and Mrs. P.S.Sengar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive and he has committed no offence. It is next contended that the applicant is a driver. It is further contended that 500 kg. contraband article i.e.'Ganja" is said to have been recovered from the possession of the applicant. There is no compliance of mandatory provisions of section 50 of N.D.P.S Act, hence the recovery is bad in the eyes of law.the On the basis of the present case the applicant has also been falsely implicated under section 2/3 of U.P.Gangsters Act. There is no independent witness to support the prosecution story. Only 1 case has been shown against the applicant in Gang Chart which has been annexed as annexure no.4 to the bail application and the said fact has also been properly explained in paragraph 4 of the affidavit. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused has also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required. It has also been submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 16.2.2018.Co-accused Babu Singh has already been released on bail by this Court on 3.1.2019 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.40458 of 2018.

¶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, and also considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶10

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and keeping in view the nature of submissions advanced and the provisions of Section 19 of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, let the applicant- Arvind Kumar involved in Case Crime No. 176 of 2018 under

¶11

Section 8/20 N.D.P.S.Act & Sec. 2/3 U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station- Vrindawan, DistrictMathura be enlarged on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:-

¶12

(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.

¶13

(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.

¶14

(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.

¶15

(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.

¶16

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

¶17

Order Date :- 9.1.2019

¶18

Arvind Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arvind Kumar 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhola @ Layak Singh Vs State of U.P.

Sanju Vs State of U.P.

Ibban Khan Vs State of U.P.

Sadiq Ali and Another Vs State of U.P.

Mudassir Khan Vs State of U.P.

Sajid Thakur Vs State of U.P.