Allowed

Roopesh @ Chudiyal v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC16 Dec 2020BAIL/36401/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted bail to Roopesh @ Chudiyal in an NDPS case charged with possession of ganja and charas. The applicant raised issues regarding false implication and alleged non-compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act. The court found it a fit case for bail without commenting on merits.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail with personal bond and two reliable sureties, conditioned not to indulge in criminal activity, tamper evidence, pressure witnesses, and to appear before the trial court.

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

¶1

Court No. - 91

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 36401 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Roopesh @ Chudiyal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kapil Tyagi,Rajeev Kumar Rai,Samarth Sinha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Subhash Chand,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for applicant(s), learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶6

This bail application has been preferred by the accusedapplicant(s), Roopesh @ Chudiyal, who is involved in Case Crime No. 249 of 2020, under Section 8/20 of NDPS Act, 1985, P.S.- Phase-2 Noida, District- Gautam Budh Nagar.

¶7

As per the F.I.R version, police apprehended applicant and 500 gms ganja and 1 kg 5 gm charas was recovered from his possession.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant(s) in support of his prayer for bail submits that the applicant(s) has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that nothing was recovered from the possession of the applicant as alleged in the FIR. The alleged recovery is manipulated and false. There is no independent witness of the alleged recovery. No compliance of provisions of Section 50 of NDPS Act has been made. There is no analysis report of concerned forensic science laboratory from which it is established that the recovered is ganja or charas. The applicant has no criminal history.

¶9

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

¶10

The applicant has been languishing in jail since 15.04.2020. Charge-sheet has been filed after investigation. Moreover, the perusal of FIR shows no compliance of Section 50 of NDPS Act was made in view of case law in Narcotics Control Bureau Vs. Sukhdev Raj Sodhi, 2011(74) ACC 589 and the Constitutional Bench of Apex Court in Vijay Sinh Jadeja Vs. State of Gujarat, 2011(72) ACC 286.

¶11

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides and going through the record, without commenting on the merits of the

¶12

case, I find it a fit case for bail.

¶13

Let applicant(s), Roopesh @ Chudiyal, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶14

(i) The applicant(s) shall not indulge in any criminal activity. (ii) The applicant(s) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.

¶15

(iii) The applicant(s) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.

¶16

(iv) The applicant(s) shall regularly appear on the dates fixed by the trial court unless his personal attendance is exempted by the trial court.

¶17

In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, liberty is given to the trial court to cancel the bail of the applicant(s) without any reference to this Court.

¶18

Order Date :- 16.12.2020 PS

Roopesh @ Chudiyal v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Roopesh @ Chudiyal 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

Devesh Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P.

Ramji Tiwari Vs State of U.P.

Vijay Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Danish Vs State of U.P.

Sanju and Another Vs State of U.P.

Shanu Vs State of U.P.