Allowed

Shadab v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC28 Oct 2021BAIL/32971/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Criminal Misc. Bail application regarding a narcotics seizure case, the High Court of Allahabad, without pronouncing on the merits, held the case fit for bail noting prima facie non-compliance with Section 50 NDPS Act. The court had the applicant released on personal and surety bonds with strict non-interference conditions.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by execution of personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in like amount with specific conditions.

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

¶1

Court No. - 67

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32971 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Shadab Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vijit Saxena Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

This is an application for bail on behalf of the applicant Shadab in Case Crime No.351 of 2021, under Sections 8 and 21 NDPS Act, Police Station Loni, District Ghaziabad.

¶6

Heard Mr. Vijit Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that S.I., Sunil Kumar Sharma has lodged the present FIR falsely implicating the applicant by making a mention that while police party was on the beat, they have nabbed the applicant. During search and seizure a light pink colour powder has been shown to be recovered from his right pocket. After weighing those material were determined to be around 140 gms. The million doller question is that, how the police party has come to know that it is a Alprazolam powder without any chemical analysis; secondly, there is no independent witness to the incident, under the circumstances, apprehension of false implication cannot be rued out; and thirdly, the primary requirement of Section 50 of the NDPS Act has not been complied with and orally an offer was made, while search and seizure, by the informant. This is a simple an eyewash just to give a color of compliance of Section 50 of NDPS Act. The applicant has no criminal antecedents to his credit. The applicant is in jail since 26.03.2021.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail.

¶9

Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the gravity of the offence, the nature of allegations, the severity of punishment, and, in particular, the fact that prima facie there is no compliance with Section 50 NDPS Act but without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court finds it to be a fit case for bail.

¶10

Let the applicant Shadab, in Case Crime No.351 of 2021, under Sections 8 and 21 NDPS Act, Police Station Loni, District Ghaziabad be released on bail on executing his personal bond

¶11

and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶12

i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.

¶13

ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses.

¶14

iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court.

¶15

iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission.

¶16

v) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

viii) 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.

¶20

In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the complainant would be free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this Court.

¶21

Order Date :- 28.10.2021 Brijesh Maurya

Shadab v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shadab 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

Sunil Vs State of U.P.

Mohd. Akram Vs State of U.P.

Ramveer Singh @ Bhure Vs State of U.P.

Bunty Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vinod Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Noor Hasan Vs State of U.P.