This court allowed a bail application filed by an accused under Sections 8/21 of the NDPS Act, noting flawed recovery procedures and jail overcrowding during the pandemic.
Release on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 66
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 37540 of 2021
Applicant :- Brijesh Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anup Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.
Heard Shri Anup Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Amit Kumar, learned AGA for the State.
A first information report was lodged as Case Crime No. 1019 of 2020 at Police Station- Goraknath, District- Gorakhpur, under Sections 8/21 of N.D.P.S. Act.
The bail application of the applicant was rejected by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 4/Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Act, Gorakhpur on 17.8.2021.
The applicant is in jail since 10.11.2020 pursuant to the said F.I.R.
Shri Anup Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. Recovery of 82 grams Alprazolam was planted on the person of the applicant to frame him in the instant case and to show the proficiency of the police investigators. The weight of the recovered substance is below the notified commercial quantity. Further even the said measurement 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. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. Recovery has been made in violation of Section 42 and 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act. Applicant has explained his criminal history. Lastly it is contended 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.
Shri Amit Kumar, learned brief holder for the State could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.
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.
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.
In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed .
Let the applicant- Brijesh Yadav involved in Case Crime No. 1019 of 2020 at Police Station- Goraknath, District- Gorakhpur, under Sections 8/21 of N.D.P.S. Act 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.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.
Order Date :- 25.11.2021 A.P. Pandey
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail considering the allegations of tainted recovery and risky jail conditions during COVID?
Whether the violation of Section 42 and 50 of NDPS Act justifies granting bail?
Whether the applicant poses a risk of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses while on bail?
Brijesh Yadav
Ajay Bhanot
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
