Allowed

Ashu v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC17 Dec 2020BAIL/46673/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed bail in a criminal miscellaneous application filed under NDPS Act. The court found it a fit case for bail considering the applicant's jail time, the quantity of smack being below commercial limit, and the non-compliance of Section 50 by the arresting authority, without commenting on merits.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Ashu released on bail on personal bond and two sureties subject to specific conditions.

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

¶1

Court No. - 91

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 46673 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Ashu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ravitendra Pratap Singh Chandel,Azhar Hussain 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), Ashu, who is involved in Case Crime No. 459 of 2020, under Sections 8/21 of NDPS Act, P.S.- New Agra, District- Agra.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant(s) in support of his prayer for bail submits that the applicant(s) is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that as per FIR case 200 grams of smack have been alleged to be recovered from the possession of applicant. No compliance of mandatory provision of Section 50 of NDPS Act has been made by the arresting authority. The applicant is in jail since 5.8.2020 and he undertakes to cooperate with the investigation

¶8

Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for bail but conceded that no compliance of Section 50 of NDPS Act was made.

¶9

As per prosecution version 200 grams of smack was recovered from the possession of the applicant which is below commercial quantity. The compliance of Section 50 of NDPS Act was not made.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that one more case has been slapped on the applicant on the same recovery memo.

¶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), Ashu , be released on bail in the aforesaid case

¶13

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.

¶15

(ii) The applicant(s) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.

¶16

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

¶17

(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.

¶18

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.

¶19

Order Date :- 17.12.2020

¶20

Prajapati

Ashu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashu 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

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.

Shahzad Vs State of U.P.