Allowed

Nakul v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC22 Apr 2020BAIL/4382/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

During a lock-down period, the single judge granted bail to the applicant charged under the N.D.P.S. Act. Relying on Article 21 and a Supreme Court dictum, the court enlarged the applicant on a personal bond pending further review of sureties after the lock-down lifts, imposing strict conditions regarding trial attendance and conduct.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail subject to furnishing a personal bond initially and providing two sureties within four weeks of the lock-down lifting.

Nakul Vs State of U.P. — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

In Chamber

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4382 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Nakul Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Yogesh Kumar Srivastava,Noor Muhammad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A

¶4

Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.

¶5

This bail application has been taken up during lock-down period as an urgent one.

¶6

State has filed counter affidavit, the same is taken on record.

¶7

Perused the records as well as counter affidavit filed by State.

¶8

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Nakul , with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 12 of 2020, under Section 21/22 N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station- Vrindavan, District- Mathura, during pendency of trial.

¶9

Recovery of 160 gram of Alprajolam is alleged to have been recovered from the possession of the applicant. There is no reference of criminal history in the affidavit except this case. It is stated in the affidavit that the applicant has been falsely implicated and no recovery has been made to the applicant. It is averred in the affidavit in support of the bail application that mandatory provision of Section 50 of N.D.P.S. Act has not been complied with. The applicant is in jail since 02.01.2020.

¶10

By filing counter affidavit, State has opposed the bail and submitted that applicant has criminal history of four other cases.

¶11

By perusal of counter affidavit, it appears that all FIRs having the case crime nos. 08 of 2020, 09 of 2020 and 18 of 2020 have been lodged on the very same day at the same police station.

¶12

Considering the material on record as well as the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 , larger mandate of Article 21 of the constitution of India, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail subject to the following conditions :-

¶13

1.Considering the special circumstances of the lock-down prevailing in the district concerned presently and in the light of the directions of this Court in PIL No. 564 of 2020 dated 06.04.2020, let the applicant be enlarged on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond only to the

¶14

satisfaction of the jail authorities, where the applicant is languishing. It is further directed that within period of four weeks from the date of lifting of the complete lock-down in the district concerned resulting in resumption of normal functioning of the Courts in that district, the applicant shall furnish two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned alongwith certified copy of this order, failing which the bail granted by this Court shall stand cancelled necessitating surrender of the applicant.

¶15

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

¶16

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

The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶18

The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶19

The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶20

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;

¶21

In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail 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.

¶22

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 default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶23

In case the applicant has been enlarged on short term bail as per the order of committee constituted under the orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court his bail shall be effective after the period of short term bail comes to an end.

¶24

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶25

Order Date :- 22.4.2020 Arvind

Nakul v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nakul 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Monish Vs State of U.P.

Ram Kumar Alias Rajkumar Vs State of U.P.

Kapil Verma Vs State of U.P.

Pawan Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Bittu @ Arun Vs State of U.P.

Prem Singh Vs State of U.P.