Sharafat @ Lala Vs State of U.P.

In Chamber Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12102 of 2020

Applicant :- Sharafat @ Lala Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Dinesh Kumar Yadav,Atmaram Nadiwal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.

¶4

This bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.30 of 2020, under Section 8/21 N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station Nakur, District Saharanpur during pendency of trial.

¶5

It is urged on behalf of the applicant that he has been falsely implicated in the instant case and recovery of 32 grams of smack is alleged to have been made from the applicant but there is no independent witnessed of the alleged recovery. It is alleged that the provisions of Section 50, 51 and 52 of the N.D.P.S. Act read with Section 100 Cr.P.C. has not been followed. It is also urged that the quantity of the prohibited substance is below the commercial quantity and the protection of section 37(b) of N.D.P.S. Act has also been claimed. The applicant is languishing in jail since 24.1.2020 without any previous criminal history and in case he is enlarged on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶6

No objection has been filed on behalf of the State.

¶7

Perused the record and rejection order passed by the court below.

¶8

Let the applicant / Sharafat @ Lala involved in the instant case crime 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 which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶9

(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.

¶10

(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

¶11

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

(v) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.

¶15

(vi) The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.

¶16

(vii) The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶17

In view of the extraordinary situation prevailing in the State due to Covid-19, the directions of this Court dated 6.4.2020 passed in Public Interest Litigation No. 564 of 2020 (In re vs. State of U.P.), shall also be complied.

¶18

The order reads thus:

¶19

"Looking to impediments in arranging sureties because of lockdown, while invoking powers under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, we deem it appropriate to order that all the accused-applicants whose bail applications came to be allowed on or after 15th March, 2020 but have not been released due to non-availability of sureties as a consequence to lockdown may be released on executing personal bond as ordered by the Court or to the satisfaction of the jail authorities where such accused is imprisoned, provided the accusedapplicants undertakes to furnish required sureties within a period of one month from the date of his/her actual release."

¶20

Order Date :- 16.4.2020/Abhishek Singh

Sharafat @ Lala v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sharafat @ Lala v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shubham Pal @ Krishna Pal Vs State of U.P.

Sangam Gaur Vs State of U.P.

Akash Solanki Vs State of U.P.

Mohammad Usman Vs State of U.P.

Shyamveer Vs State of U.P.

Sajid Vs State of U.P.