Allowed

Bhola @ Layak Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC8 Jan 2019BAIL/9707/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal bail application under the N.D.P.S. Act regarding recovery of Alprazolam, the court granted bail on personal bond with heavy sureties without expressing opinion on merits, emphasizing severity of punishment and prima facie satisfaction of charges.

What did the court decide?

Applicant granted bail on furnishing personal bond with two heavy sureties under specified conditions of appearance and no adjournment.

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

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9707 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Bhola @ Layak Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Manish Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Supplementry affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the applicant today in the Court is taken on record.

¶6

Counter affidavit filed by the learned A.G.A. today in the Court is taken on record.

¶7

Heard Sri Rajeev Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Abhinav Prasad, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State.

¶8

It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that 700 grams contraband article, i.e., Alprazolam is said to have been recovered from the joint possession of the applicant and coaccused Tinku. He further submits that there is no compliance of mandatory provisions of Sections 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. The applicant is in jail since 1.11.2017.

¶9

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

¶10

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and 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, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

¶11

Let the applicant Bhola @ Layak Singh involved in Case Crime No.562 of 2017, under Section 8/21 N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station Etmadpur, District Agra be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following condition:-

¶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

¶15

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.

¶16

(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.

¶17

Order Date :- 8.1.2019 Dev/-

Bhola @ Layak Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhola @ Layak 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

Shiva Parashar Vs State of U.P.

Laxman Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Somveer Vs State of U.P.

Sanju Vs State of U.P.

Ibban Khan Vs State of U.P.

Sanjay Yadav Vs State of U.P.