In a bail application under the NDPS Act, the court considered allegations of false implication and procedural non-compliance. Relying on legal precedents regarding Article 21 and considering the period of detention, the court granted bail on personal bond and sureties with specific conditions.
Applicant released on bail on personal bond and two sureties.
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. - 44..................................................................A.F.R.
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16769 of 2021
Applicant :- Amir @ Bhola Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Srivastava,Anwar Hussain,Rajesh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.
The Court has convened through Video conferencing.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record.
This application has been filed seeking the release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 0047 of 2021, u/s 8/20 of N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 (State of U.P. Vs. Amir @ Bhola), P.S.Rasoolpur, District Firozabad.
Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the quantity of the contraband shown to be recovered from the possession of the applicant is 950 gram Charas which is said to be below commercial quantity. The contention is that the police has deliberately shown the amount exaggeratedly just in order to add to the gravity of the offence. It has also been pointed out that the applicant is jail since 24.02.2021. Other submissions assailing the the truthfulness of the prosecution story with regard to the recovery have also been made. Further contention is that the statutory provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 have not been complied with in true letter and spirit, and therefore, the legal sanctity of the alleged recovery stands vitiated. The counsel has also tried to demonstrate the circumstances indicating the false implication of the applicant. Malice behind the prosecution has also been pleaded during the course of the arguments placed on behalf of the accused.
Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions
which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. It has also been pointed out that the accused is not having any criminal history and he is in jail since 24.02.2021 and that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail.
After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence, the period of detention already undergone, the unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence and larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh vs. State of UP and another, (2018) 3 SCC 22, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.
Let the applicant- Amir @ Bhola involved in Case Crime No. 0047 of 2021, u/s 8/20 of N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 (State of U.P. Vs. Amir @ Bhola), P.S.- Rasoolpur, District Firozabad, be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned on the following conditions :-
(1) The applicant will not make any attempt to tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever.
(2) The applicant will personally appear on each and every date fixed in the court below and his personal presence shall not be exempted unless the court itself deems it fit to do so in the interest of justice.
(3) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.
(4) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.
(5)The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad or certified copy issued from the Registry of the High Court, Allahabad.
(6) The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the 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
It may be observed that in the event of any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to proceed for the cancellation of applicant's bail.
It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.
Order Date :- 9.6.2021 SA
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail in a case underSections 8 and 20 of the NDPS Act despite recovery of charas alleged to be above commercial quantity.
Whether the applicant is likely to tamper with evidence or commit any further offence if released on bail.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dataram Singh vs. State of UP and anotherRelied on¶12
Dataram Singh vs. State of UP and another, (2018) 3 SCC 22 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Amir @ Bhola
Shamim Ahmed
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
