Allowed

Unish Malik @ Daffer Malik v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC29 Nov 2021BAIL/14443/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under the NDPS Act, the applicant alleged false implication and procedural violations regarding the recovery of narcotic substances. Considering jail overcrowding due to COVID-19 and lack of satisfactory prosecution rebuttal, the Single Judge allowed the bail application and ordered the applicant's release. The court imposed conditions regarding non-tampering and witness infl

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount subject to conditions against tampering, influencing witnesses, and attending hearings.

Unish Malik @ Daffer Malik Vs State of U.P. — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 66

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14443 of 2021 Applicant :- Unish Malik @ Daffer Malik Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Jitendra Kumar,Ashutosh Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶4

Heard Sri Jitendra Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.

¶5

A first information report was lodged against the applicant as Case Crime No. 860 of 2020 at Police Station- Highway, District- Mathura under Section 21/22 of the N.D.P.S. Act.

¶6

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by learned Special Judge (N.D.P.S. Act)/learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mathura on 15.12.2020.

¶7

The applicant is in jail since 23.11.2021, pursuant to the said F.I.R.

¶8

Sri Jitendra Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. 300 gms. Alprazolam powder was planted on the person of the applicant to frame him in the instant criminal case and to show proficiency of police investigators. The weight of recovered substance as stated in the F.I.R. is unreliable as accurate scientific instruments were not used for weighment. The recovery was made in violation of Section 42 read with Section 50 of the NDPS Act. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. No forensic science laboratory report has been submitted which confirms that the substance allegedly recovered is prohibited under the NDPS Act. Apart from the instant case, the applicant does not have criminal history. Lastly it is contended by the learned counsel for applicant that the

¶9

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.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶11

Courts have taken notice of the overcrowding of jails during 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.

¶12

I see merit in the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant and hold that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶13

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

¶14

Let the applicant- Unish Malik @ Daffer Malik involved in Case Crime No. 860 of 2020 at Police Station- Highway, District- Mathura under Section 21/22 of the N.D.P.S. Act., be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions.

¶15

The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶16

The applicant will not influence any witness.

¶17

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

¶18

The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any 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.

¶19

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

¶20

Order Date :- 29.11.2021 Pravin

Unish Malik @ Daffer Malik v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Unish Malik @ Daffer Malik 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

Bhagwan Sahay Vs State of U.P.

Shiv Kumar Babbu Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Tarun Vs State of U.P.

Shabir @ Badde Vs State of U.P.

Nazre Alam Vs State of U.P.

Kunwar Lal Vs State of Up