Allowed

Vishnu Nishad v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC27 Sept 2021BAIL/32665/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to the applicant accused of possessing alprozolam, holding that while non-compliance with NDPS Act provisions affected the legality of recovery, the charges were not proven. Guided by Article 21 and a Supreme Court precedent, the apex court of the specific bench found prima facie satisfaction insufficient for detention and ordered the applicant's release with conditions

What did the court decide?

Released on bail with personal bond and two heavy sureties, subject to conditions including attendance at trial, no tampering with witnesses, and no illegal activities.

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

¶1

Court No. - 71

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32665 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Vishnu Nishad Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Kumar Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for opposite party, learned AGA, appearing for the State and perused the material brought on record.

¶6

It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that contraband article, i.e., 120 gram alprozolam nashila powder was recovered from the possession of the applicant. He further submits that there is no compliance of mandatory provisions of Sections 42,43, 50 and Section 52,52A, Section 55 and 57 of the NDPS Act, hence recovery is bad in the eyes of law. The applicant has six previous criminal history in which he has already been granted bail by the court concerned. The applicant is in jail since 7.9.2020.

¶7

Learned counsel for the opposite party as well as learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer.

¶8

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.

¶9

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.

¶10

Let applicant- Vishnu Nishad, be released on bail in Case Crime

¶11

No. 0537 of 2020, under Sections- 21/22of NDPS Act, Police Station- Vrindavan, District- Mathura, on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties (One should be of a family member) each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶12

The applicant will attend and co-operate the trial proceedings pending before the court concerned on the date fixed after release.

¶13

He will not tamper with the witnesses.

¶14

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

¶15

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.

¶16

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

¶17

The trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the present case and conclude the same expeditiously preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment.

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶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 :- 27.9.2021 SKM

Vishnu Nishad v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishnu Nishad 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

Raju Rajbhar Vs State of U.P.

Nigam Chauhan Vs State of U.P.

Mohd. Chand Vs State of U.P.

Sushil Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Lakhan Singh Vs State of U.P.

Sonu Awasthi Vs State of U.P.