This judgment grants bail to Ramfal accused under the N.D.P.S. Act for alleged possession of Alprazolam. The court held that non-compliance with Section 50 makes it a fit case for bail, citing relevant precedents, despite the quantity exceeding commercial limits.
Accorded bail to the applicant on furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount.
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. - 46676 of 2020
Applicant :- Ramfal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- A Kumar Srivastava,Anand Prakash Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Subhash Chand,J.
Heard learned counsel for applicant(s), learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
This bail application has been preferred by the accusedapplicant(s) Ramfal who is involved in Case Crime No.903 of 2020 under Section 8/21 N.D.P.S. Act, P.S.- Modi Nagar District-Ghaziabad.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has falsely been implicated in this case 150 gram Alprazolam is alleged to be recovered from the possession of the applicant but no compliance of Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act was made. The applicant has no criminal history.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the bail application and contended that the alleged recovery of 150 gram Alprazolam is above the commercial quantity but conceded on the point of non compliance of mandatory provision of Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act.
As the alleged 180 gram Alprazloam was recovered from the possession of the applicant, the compliance of Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act was mandatory 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 .The applicant has been languishing in jail since 23.10.2020.
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.
Let applicant(s) Ramfal 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:-
(i) The applicant(s) shall not indulge in any criminal activity.
(ii) The applicant(s) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.
(iii) The applicant(s) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.
(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.
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.
Order Date :- 17.12.2020 SKS
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to an accused charged under Section 8/21 of the N.D.P.S. Act when Section 50 was not complied with.
Whether non-compliance of mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act renders the case a fit one for bail.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Narcotics Control Bureau Vs. Sukhdev Raj SodhiApplied¶9
Narcotics Control Bureau Vs. Sukhdev Raj Sodhi, 2011(74) ACC 589
Vijay Sinh Jadeja Vs. State of GujaratApplied¶9
Vijay Sinh Jadeja Vs. State of Gujarat, 2011(72) ACC 286
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Ramfal
State of U.P.
Subhash Chand
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Subhash Chand
Parties & counsel
