Anil Yadav v. Union of India
Case brief
What is this about?
The court rejected a bail application filed by Anil Yadav challenging his arrest under NDPS Act. While acknowledging state guidelines on seized quantities, the court held that rule-making procedures do not create fundamental rights. The applicant was remanded to judicial custody for three months.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 91
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27663 of 2020
Applicant :- Anil Yadav Opposite Party :- Union of India Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- Ashish Pandey
Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.
orZeku nkf.Md izdh.kZ tekur izkFkZuk i=] vkosnd vfuy ;kno dh vksj ls ,u0lh0ch0 dzkbe ua0 41 lu 2019] vUrxZr /kkjk 8 (C)/20 (C)/28/29 ,u0Mh0ih0,l0 ,sDV] Fkkuk uSuh (lh,uch y[kum)] ftyk bykgkckn esa tekur ij eqDr djus gsrq izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA
vkosnd ds fo}ku vf/koDrk ,oa Hkkjr la?k ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dks lquk rFkk i=koyh dk ifj’khyu fd;kA
vkosnd ds fo}ku vf/koDrk us rdZ izLrqr fd;k fd vkosnd dks bl izdj.k >wBk QWlk;k x;k gS] mlus dfFkr vijk/k dkfjr ugha fd;k gS] rFkkdfFkr cjken’kqnk xkatk ds 40 c.Myksa dk otu 47 fd0 500 xzke gS] ftuesa 11 c.My 2&2 fdyksxzke ds] 22 c.My 1&1 fdyksxzke ds ,oa 7 e.My vk/kk&vk/kk fdyksxzke ds gSa] ;g rF; Lor% tekur fujLrhdj.k vkns’k esa mfYyf[kr gS] tcfd ifjokni= esa bl ckr dk mYys[k fd;k x;k gS fd cjken 47-5 fdyks xkWts ls 25&25 xzke ds 04 uewus inkFkZ jklk;fud ijh{k.k gsrq fudkyk x;k gS] bl izdkj rFkkdfFkr cjken xkWtk ds izR;sd c.My ls uewuk eky ugha fy;k x;k gSA vkosnd funksZ"k gS rFkk og bl izdj.k esa fn0 15&11&2020 ls dkjkxkj es a fu:) gS] blfy, vkosnd dks tekur ij NksM+ fn;k tk;A
vkosnd ds fo}ku vf/koDrk us vius rdksZ ds leFkZu esa fof/k O;oLFkk Jaswinder Singh and Another Vs. State of Punjab 2012 LawSuit (P&H) 5446 ij fo’okl O;Dr fd;k] ftlesa iSdsV ds uewus ij vPNh rjg ls fopkj fd;k x;k gSA bl laca/k esa vkosnd ds fo}ku vf/koDrk us Haider Ansari Vs. State of U.P. ds ekeys esa bl U;k;ky; dh iwoZorhZ [k.MihB }kjk fn, x, fu.kZ; ij fuHkZjrk j[kus dk Hkh iz;kl fd;k gS] ftlesa ;g izkfo/kkfur fd;k x;k gS fd ukdksZfVd daVzksy C;wjks] ubZ fnYyh us LFkk;h funsZ’k uacj 1@88 tkjh djds daVzkcsaM inkFkksZ dh olwyh vkSj muds uewus ysus ds ekeyksa esa izfdz;k ds ekudksa dk ikyu fd;k gS] ;s funsZ’k ,sls ekeyksa esa nf"Vdks.k dh ,d:irk ykus vkSj MzXl ds uewuksa dks laHkkyus dh ,d lqjf{kr iz.kkyh iznku djus ds mn~ns’; ls tkjh fd, x, gSa] tks uewuksa ds Mzkbax] vxzs"k.k vkSj ijh{k.k ds laca/k esa izfdz;k dks ekudhdr djuk gSA mDr funsZ’ksa ds izklafxd va’k uhps fn, x, gSa %&
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether bail can be granted when the charge sheet pleads drug quantity is less than warranting special procedure, despite government action requisitioning lesser amounts.
Whether the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Rules regarding seized quantity and sample collection constitute Fundamental Rights and limitation on executive action.
Whether judicial discretion to fix higher bail bond amount violates the right to fair trial in NDPS cases.
Parties & counsel
- applicant
Anil Yadav
Coram
Gautam Chowdhary
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Allahabad HC
- Decided on
- · October
- Registered
- Case no.
- BAIL/27663/2020
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court