Allowed

Salman v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC7 Sept 2021BAIL/3376/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge granted bail to Salman in an NDPS case involving possession of Alprazolam. The court held it a fit case for bail without commenting on merits, imposing strict conditions regarding court attendance and trial conclusion within one year, citing potential misuse of bail.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail with personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions of court attendance, no adjournments, and trial conclusion within one year.

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

¶1

Court No. - 69 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3376 of 2021 Applicant :- Salman Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shashi Shekhar Mishra,Devesh Kumar Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶3

Rejoinder affidavit has been filed today, is taken on record.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶5

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.495 of 2020, under Sections 21/22 of NDPS Act at Police Station Kotwali, District Mathura.

¶6

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. From the possession of the applicant, 246 grams Alprazolam is said to have been recovered and sample has been sent to F.S.L. but no report has been received as yet. He has further submitted that at the time of arrest, mandatory provisions of Section 50 of NDPS Act has not been complied with. He has further submitted that nothing has been recovered from the possession of the applicant and the alleged recovery is false and fabricated. There is no independent eye witness of the alleged recovery, which has been shown by the police. He has further submitted that applicant is having criminal history of one case in which he is on bail and in case the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. The applicant is in jail since 13.10.2020.

¶7

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposes the application for bail.

¶8

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusal of record and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment as well as totality of facts and circumstances, at this stage without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.

¶9

Let the applicant- Salman , who is involved in aforementioned case 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.

¶10

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

¶11

(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 IPC.

¶12

(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., may be issued and if 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 IPC.

¶13

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) 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.

¶14

(v) The Trial Court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial within a period of one year after the release of the applicant.

¶15

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

¶16

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

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

Order Date :- 7.9.2021/Ajeet

Salman v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Salman 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

Rahul Vs State of U.P.

Saurabh Vs State of U.P.

Shivam Vs State of U.P.

Jwala Prasad and Another Vs State of U.P.

Anil Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Faizan Vs State of U.P.