Allowed

Shiv Kumar Babbu Yadav v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC27 Nov 2021BAIL/35501/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a bail application under the NDPS Act, 1985. The applicant alleged false implication, illegal planting of drugs, and procedural violations during recovery. Citing jail overcrowding due to the pandemic, the court granted bail subject to security and standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in like amount.

Shiv Kumar Babbu Yadav Vs State of U.P. — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 66

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 35501 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Shiv Kumar @ Babbu Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mahendra Pratap Yadav,Pavan Kishore

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Pawan Kishore, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.

¶7

A first information report was lodged against the applicant as Case Crime No.203 of 2021 at Police Station-Kotwali, District-Basti under Section 8/22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985.

¶8

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Basti, on 02.08.2021.

¶9

The applicant is in jail since 04.07.2021, pursuant to the said F.I.R.

¶10

Shri Pawan Kishore, learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. 102.7 gm. Alprazolam was illegally planted on the person of the applicant to frame him in the instant case and to show proficiency of police investigators. The commercial quantity of the said substance is 100 gm. The weight of the recovered

¶11

substance as stated in the F.I.R. is unreliable as accurate scientific instruments were not used for weighment. The recovery was made in violation of Section 42 read with Section 50 of the NDPS Act. No forensic science laboratory report has been submitted which confirms that the substance allegedly recovered is prohibited under the NDPS Act. There is no independent witness or public witness to the alleged recovery. Learned counsel for the applicant while explaining the criminal history of the applicant contends that the same has no bearing on the instant case. Lastly it is submitted by the learned counsel for applicant that the applicant shall not abscond, and will fully cooperate in the criminal law proceedings. The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence nor influence the witnesses in any manner.

¶12

Shri Nafees Ahmad, learned AGA could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶13

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.

¶14

I see merit in the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant and hold that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶15

In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.

¶16

Let the applicant- Shiv Kumar @ Babbu Yadav involved in Case Crime No.203 of 2021 at Police StationKotwali, District-Basti under Section 8/22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985 be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions.

¶17

The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶18

The applicant will not influence any witness.

¶19

The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶20

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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶21

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶22

Order Date :- 27.11.2021 Dhananjai

Shiv Kumar Babbu Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiv Kumar Babbu Yadav 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

Tarbabu Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Jitendra Vs State of U.P.

Vinay Mishra Vs State of U.P.

Fareed Vs State of U.P.

Vikas @ Vishal Jatav Vs State of U.P.

Shiva @ Shashank Vs State of U.P.