Allowed

Shahid @ Puppy v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC3 Dec 2021BAIL/2421/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a bail application in a narcotics trial case. The applicant challenged the recovery and non-compliance with procedural mandates. Noting the quantity was below commercial limits and the applicant had been in custody for over a month, the court found a case for bail was made out.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail with personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions against tampering with evidence and cooperating with trial.

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

¶1

Court No. - 88

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2421 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Shahid @ Puppy Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Irshad Saleem,Shoar Mohammad Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sandeep Tripathi

¶4

Hon'ble Anil Kumar Ojha,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Shahid @ Puppy seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 484 of 2020, under Section 8/20 N.D.P.S. Act, registered at P.S.- Nagina, District- Bijnor.

¶7

Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. 500 gram Charas is said to have been allegedly recovered from the possession of the applicant, which is below the commercial quantity. The prosecution story is fake, frivolous and concocted. Alleged recovery of Charas is false and fabricated. No compliance of mandatory provision of Section 42, 50 55 and 57 of N.D.P.S. Act has been made at the time of alleged search and seizure. There is no independent witness of the alleged recovery. Applicant has explained criminal history in para 3 of the supplementary. Further submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 21.10.2020.

¶8

Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the facts as raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶9

Nature of accusation, evidence collected by I.O. in support of the charge, gravity of offence, nature and severity of punishment in case of conviction, complicity of accused and all other attending circumstances were duly considered.

¶10

Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the alleged recovered Charas is below commercial quantity and the applicant is languishing in jail since 21.10.2020, without commenting upon merits of the case, a case for bail is made out.

¶11

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶12

Let the applicant Shahid @ Puppy involved in the aforesaid case crime, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions;

¶13

The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

¶14

The applicant shall co-operate with the trial and shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for charge, evidence when the witnesses are present in the court, statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and argument.

¶15

During trial, he shall not indulge in any criminal activities.

¶16

In breach of any condition enumerated above, Trial Court shall be at liberty to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶17

Order Date :- 3.12.2021 v.k.updh.

Shahid @ Puppy v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shahid @ Puppy 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

Brijesh Vs State of U.P.

Rajkumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

Shahid @ Nisar Vs State of U.P.

Markandey Vs State of U P

Reyaz Vs State of U.P.

Sudip Kumar Verma @ Sandeep Vs State of U.P.