Allowed

Parun v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC6 Mar 2019BAIL/9394/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal bail application under the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985, the court granted bail to the applicant impugning the recovery of contraband. The court relied on the reformative theory of punishment and Article 21, along with a Supreme Court precedent, finding the case qualifies as a bail matter without expressing an opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on a personal bond and two local sureties subject to strict conditions of attendance and penalty for default.

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

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9394 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Parun Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kamlesh Kumar Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Kamlesh Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Abhinav Prasad, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. The applicant has no concern with the present case. It is next contended that contraband substance, i.e. 1Kg.100 gram., Charas, is said to have been recovered from the possession of the applicant. As a matter of fact no such recovery has been made from the applicant. The police has planted false recovery. Factum of recovery has not been supported by any independent or public witness to support the prosecution version. It is also contended that mandatory provisions enumerated under section 50, 52, 52A and 57 of N.D.P.S. Act has not been complied with. Further there is also no compliance of Section 42 and 51 of the N.D.P.S. Act. It is further contended that applicant is languishing in jail since 4.10.2018, having no other criminal history and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial.

¶7

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

¶8

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, 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, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a case of bail.

¶9

Let applicant- Parun, involved in Case Crime No. 829 of 2018, under section 8/20 of N.D.P.S. Act, 1985, Police Station - Dankaur, DistrictGautam Budh Nagar, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶10

(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.

¶11

(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

¶13

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.

¶14

(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.

¶15

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 court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.

¶17

Order Date :- 6.3.2019 ssm

Parun v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parun 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

Gangasharan Vs State of U.P.

Meharban Vs State of U.P.

Javed Vs State of U.P.

Chhotu Singh and Another Vs State of U.P.

Rinku Singh @ Bhan Singh Vs State of U.P.

Maikal Sonkar Vs State of U.P.