Allowed

Shahzad v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC17 Dec 2020BAIL/46646/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted bail to the applicant in an NDPS case where 185 grams of Alprazolam were alleged to be recovered without compliance with Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act. Relying on precedents, the court held that such procedural lapse makes it a fit case for bail.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail with personal bond and two sureties on conditions of not indulging in criminal activity and appearing before trial court.

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

¶1

Court No. - 91

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 46646 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Shahzad Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Syed Ali Imam Counsel for Opposite Party :- A.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) Shazad who is involved in Case Crime No.406 of 2020 under Section 8/21 NDPS Act, P.S.- Bhojpur DistrictGhaziabad.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that from the perusal of the F.I.R. itself reveals that no compliance of Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act was made. There is no independent witness of the alleged recovery. The applicant is in jail since 2.10.2020. 100 gram Alprazolam power and tablets are alleged to be recovered from the applicant.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. opposed this bail application on the ground that the alleged recovery of 185 gram is above the commercial quantity which is 100 gram but conceded on the point of noncompliance of Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act.

¶9

As per prosecution case 185 gram Alprazolam was recovered from the possession of the application and no compliance of mandatory provision of Section 50 of N.D.P.S. Act was made in view of Narcotic Bureao Vs. Sukhdeo Raj Sodhi 2011 (74) ACC 589 and the Constitutional Bench of Apex Court in Vijai Singhs Jadeja Vs. State of Gujrat 2011 (72) ACC 286 .

¶10

The applicant has no previous criminal history. However, at the time of arrest he was also implicated in one another Crime Case No. 405/2020 under Section 3/5/8 of Cow Slaughter Act, P.S. Bjojpur, District- Ghaziabad.

¶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 case, I find it a fit case for bail.

¶12

Let applicant(s) Shazad 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:-

¶13

(i) The applicant(s) shall not indulge in any criminal activity.

¶14

(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 :- 17.12.2020 SKS

Shahzad v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shahzad 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

Kallu Vs State of U.P.

Roopesh @ Chudiyal Vs State of U.P.

Rambachan Vs State of U.P.

Ramfal Vs State of U.P.

Baijnath Prasad Jaiswal Vs State of U.P.

Ashu Vs State of U.P.