Allowed

Inamul v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC2 Jun 2021BAIL/13722/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Section 439 CrPC in an NDPS case involving alleged recovery of alprazolam, the Court found it a fit case for bail despite opposition by the State, subject to strict conditions regarding trial proceedings, presence, and fulfillment of procedural mandates.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicant on personal bond and two sureties subject to stringent conditions regarding court attendance, no adjournment seeking during evidence, and compliance with trial dates.

Inamul Vs State of U.P. — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 78

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13722 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Inamul Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sushil Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State through video conferencing and perused the record.

¶6

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.20 of 2021, under Section 21/22 of NDPS Act at Police Station Goverdhan, District Mathura.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant has been arrested on 16.01.2021 alongwith one another accused person and from the possession of the applicant, 1.100 kilogram alprazolam is said to have been recovered. He has further submitted that at the time of arrest, the mandatory provisions of Sections 42, 26, 52 and 57 of NDPS Act has not been complied with. Nothing has been recovered from the possession of the applicant and the alleged recovery, that has been shown, is false and fabricated one. There is no independent eye witness of the alleged recovery, which has been shown by the police. He has further submitted that the applicant is having no criminal history and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. The applicant is in jail since 16.01.2021.9

¶8

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposes the application for bail.

¶9

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusal of record and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment as well as totality of facts and circumstances, at this stage without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.

¶10

Let the applicant- Inamul , who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further,

¶11

before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶12

(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT. IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶13

(ii) 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 IPC.

¶14

(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF 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 IPC.

¶15

(iv) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) RECORDING OF STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C. IF IN THE OPINION OF THE TRIAL COURT ABSENCE OF THE APPLICANT IS DELIBERATE OR WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THEN IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT SUCH DEFAULT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PROCEED AGAINST HIM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶16

(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT.

¶17

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

¶18

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶19

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

¶20

The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.

¶21

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the

¶22

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.

¶23

Order Date :- 2.6.2021

¶24

Ajeet

Inamul v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Inamul 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

Gulfam Vs State of U.P.

Bharat Pandey Vs State of U.P.

Dileep Vs State of U.P.

Ajay Sharma (Minor) Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Veer Pal Singh Vs State of U.P.

Sanjay Yadav Vs State of U.P.