Allowed

Vikram @ Veetu v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC24 Nov 2021BAIL/13720/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge allowed the bail application for the applicant charged under Sections 21/22 NDPS Act. The court noted contradictions in the prosecution case regarding recovered quantity and procedural violations, and considered jail overcrowding during the pandemic.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in the like amount, subject to standard conditions.

Vikram @ Veetu Vs State of U.P. — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 66

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13720 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Vikram @ Veetu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kuldeep Singh Yadav,Kamal Dev Rai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

Counter affidavit filed today is taken in the record.

¶6

Heard Sri Kuldeep Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vikas Sahai, learned AGA for the State.

¶7

A first information report was lodged against the applicant as Case Crime No. 0034 of 2021 at Police Station-Jaswant Nagar District Etawah on 24.01.2021 under Sections 21/22 NDPS Act.

¶8

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 10, Etawah on 12.02.2021.

¶9

The applicant is in jail since 24.01.2021, pursuant to the said F.I.R.

¶10

Sri Kuldeep Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the

¶11

instant case. The prohibited substance was planted on the person of the applicant only to implicate him in the instant case and show proficiency of the investigator.

¶12

The assertion in the FIR is that 500 gms of prohibited substance was recovered from the applicant. Counter affidavit asserts that 130 gms of alprazolam powder was recovered from the person of the applicant. Responding to the aforesaid averment Sri Kuldeep Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant contends that the prosecution case is selfcontradictory. The commercial quantity of alprazolam as notified under the Act is 100gms. The recovery was made in violation of Section 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. The weight of recovered substance as stated in the F.I.R. is unreliable as accurate scientific instruments were not used for weighment. The applicant does not have criminal history apart from the instant case. Lastly it is submitted by Sri Sanjay Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for applicant that the applicant shall not abscond, and will fully cooperate in the criminal law proceedings. The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence nor influence the witnesses in any manner.

¶13

Vikas Sahai, learned AGA for the State could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶14

Courts have taken notice of the overcrowding of jails during

¶15

the current pandemic situation ( Ref.: Suo Motu Writ Petition (c) No. 1/2020, Contagion of COVID 19 Virus in prisons before the Supreme Court of India ). These circumstances shall also be factored in while considering bail applications on behalf of accused persons.

¶16

I see merit in the submissions of Sri Kuldeep Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and accordingly hold that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶17

In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.

¶18

Let the applicant- Vikram @ Veetu be released on bail in Case Crime No. 34 of 2021 at Police Station-Jaswant Nagar District Etawah under Sections 21/22 NDPS Act, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below. The following conditions be imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶19

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶20

(ii) The applicant will not influence any witness.

¶21

(iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶22

(iv) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶23

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶24

Order Date :- 24.11.2021 Nadeem

Vikram @ Veetu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikram @ Veetu 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

Suhail Vs State of U.P.

Munesh Vs State of U.P.

Shivnath Vs State of U.P. and Another

Triveni Lal Vs State of U.P.

Hardwari Lal Vs State of U.P.

Rajendra Prasad Vs State of U.P.