Allowed

Amir v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC5 Oct 2021BAIL/29473/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application, the court noted that the alleged recovery of drugs was below commercial quantity, lacked public witnesses, and allegedly violated procedural safeguards. The court prima facie found satisfaction for bail, citing reformative punishment and Article 21, and ordered the applicant's release on personal bond with sureties.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties subject to standard conditions.

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

¶1

Court No. - 79 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29473 of 2021 Applicant :- Amir Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Hemendra Pratap Singh,Anshu Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,J.

¶3

Heard Sri Hemendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶4

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No.580 of 2020, under Section 21/22 of N.D.P.S.Act, Police Station Quarasi, District Aligarh during the pendency of trial.

¶5

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. As per F.I.R., 350 gram diazepam powder is alleged to have been recovered from the possession of the applicant, which is below the commercial quantity i.e. 500 gram. It is further contended that the entire recovery is forged and fabricated for which there is no public witness and there is no compliance of Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act while making search. Lastly it is contended that the applicant is in jail since 03.07.2020 having previous criminal history of four cases, in three cases out of four he is on interim bail and in one case he is on regular bail and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.

¶6

Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶7

Having heard the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment, and larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 2 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a case of bail.

¶8

Let the applicant, Amir involved in aforesaid 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, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶9

The applicant will attend and co-operate the trial proceedings

¶10

pending before the court concerned on the date fixed after release.

¶11

He will not tamper with the witnesses.

¶12

He will not indulge in any illegal activities during the bail period.

¶13

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶14

It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

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.

¶19

Order Date :- 5.10.2021

¶20

S.P.

Amir v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amir 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jitendra Kumar @ Adarsh Vs State of U.P.

Gulam Navi Vs State of U.P.

Shiv Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Rajendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Yachna Bhardwaj Vs State of U.P.

Sona Jaat Vs State of U.P.