Allowed

Ajit Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC13 Sept 2021BAIL/25473/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court entertained a bail application under Sections 21/22 of NDPS Act. Relying on Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja, the court noted non-compliance with Section 50 NDPS Act. Despite criminal history, bail was granted on furnishing bond and sureties with strict conditions regarding attendance and evidence.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount with strict conditions.

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

¶1

Court No. - 68

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25473 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Ajit Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Pankaj Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record of the case.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant, Ajit Singh with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 96 of 2021, under Section 21/22 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police StationChakarnagar, District- Etawah, during pendency of trial.

¶7

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with ulterior motive. No incriminating article/contraband i.e. 172 gm. Diazepam powder has been recovered from the personal possession of the applicant. The police party has shown recovery of 172 gm. Diazepam powder from the right pocket of pant of the applicant. The police party had not followed the mandatory provisions of Sections 50 of the NDPS Act. It is further submitted that in order to make search and recovery of the contraband articles from the body of the applicant, search and recovery has to be inconformity with the requirements of Section 50, NDPS Act. A search and recovery made from the applicant of the alleged contraband does not satisfy the mandatory requirements of Section 50, NDPS Act as held by Constitution Bench of Apex Court in the case of Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja Vs. State of Gujarat, (2011) 1 SCC 609 .

¶8

It is further submitted that the applicant has criminal history of four other cases related to hurt, criminal intimidation, criminal breach of trust and Excise Act, which have been duly explained in para no.2 of the supplementary affidavit. In all the aforesaid cases the applicant has been granted bail by the court below. It is next submitted that there is also no possibility of the applicant either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses. The applicant, who is languishing in jail since 31.8.2020, undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty, if granted. It has also been pointed out that in the wake

¶9

of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.

¶10

Per contra learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. In case the applicant is released on bail, he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

¶11

Upon considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for bail.

¶12

Let applicant, Ajit Singh be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions-

¶13

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 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.

¶14

(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 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶15

(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. is issued and the 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 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶16

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) 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.

¶17

It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.

¶18

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

¶19

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the petitioner alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.

¶20

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.

¶21

Order Date :- 13.9.2021 T. Sinha

Ajit Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajit Singh 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

Govinda Vs State of U.P.

Surendra Kumar Patel Vs State of U.P.

Vijay Bahadur Singh Vs State of U.P.

Mohd. Akib Vs State of U.P.

Moonish Vs State of U.P.

Ishaq Ahmad Vs State of U.P.