Allowed

Vijay @ Dhadhu v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC13 Jul 2020BAIL/18877/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application regarding offences under Sections 21/22 of the N.D.P.S. Act, the Court allowed the applicant's plea for bail. The Court imposed conditions including appearance before the trial court and filing of a computer-generated copy. Citing Covid-19 lockdown circumstances, the Court allowed release on a personal bond with an undertaking to furnish sureties later, referencing PIL No. 56

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and undertaking to provide two sureties within one month.

Vijay @ Dhadhu Vs State of U.P. — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 81

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 18877 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Vijay @ Dhadhu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Upendra Kumar Pushkar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.

¶5

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

¶6

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.329 of 2020, under Sections 21/22 N.D.P.S. Act, police station Qwarsi, District Aligarh with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

¶7

For the purposes of considering the prayer for bail, the Court takes note of the submission that the applicant was falsely implicated in a case alleging commission of offences under the Excise Act on 06 April 2020. In that matter the Court of Sessions noted that no incriminating material had been collected from the applicant and that he had also not been arrested on spot. Faced with this situation the Sessions Judge granted the applicant bail in that case. It is only thereafter that the instant crime came to be registered on 08 April 2020. The alleged recoveries said to have been made are assailed on the ground of violation of the mandatory procedure as prescribed under the N.D.P.S. Act. Apart from the aforementioned two cases, the applicant has no other previous criminal history. It has been submitted that in case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶8

Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant but could not point out anything material to the contrary.

¶9

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions noticed above, without commenting upon merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. Accordingly let the applicant - Vijay @ Dhadhu involved in the aforesaid 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:-

¶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 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 06.04.2020 passed in Public Interest Litigation No. 564 of 2020 (In re vs. State of U.P.) shall also be complied. The order reads thus:

¶18

" 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. "

¶19

Order Date :- 13.7.2020 faraz

Vijay @ Dhadhu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay @ Dhadhu 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

Devendra Kumar Vs U.P. Power Corporation Limited and 8 Others

Rajendra Prasad Chamar Vs State of Up

Jagdamba Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Jitendra Kumar Pal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mulayan @ Mulamma Vs State of U.P.

Shailendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others