Allowed

Rahul Nat @ Kariya @ Jumrati v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC8 Dec 2021BAIL/38025/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 38025 of 2021 pending before Court No. 66 regarding an NDPS charge. The applicant alleged evidence planting and procedural lapse in recovery. The Court considered pandemic overcrowding and allowed bail without discussing case merits.

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount.

Rahul Nat @ Kariya @ Jumrati Vs State of U.P. — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 66

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38025 of 2021 Applicant :- Rahul Nat @ Kariya @ Jumrati Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ajeet Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶4

Heard Shri Ajeet Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.

¶5

A first information report was lodged against the applicant as Case Crime No. 0176 of 2020 at Police StationSukhpura, District- Ballia under Section 8/20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985.

¶6

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by learned Special Judge (NDPS Act)/ Additional Sessions Judge, Ballia, on 19.07.2021.

¶7

The applicant is in jail since 10.12.2020, pursuant to the said F.I.R.

¶8

Shri Ajeet Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. 2kg 100 gm. Ganja was planted on the person of the applicant to frame him in the instant case to show proficiency of police investigators. The commercial quantity of the said substance is 20kg. The weight of the recovered 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

¶9

confirms that the substance allegedly recovered is prohibited under the NDPS Act. There is no independent witness or public witness to the alleged recovery. Apart from this case the applicant does not have any criminal history. Learned counsel for the applicant has explained the criminal history and 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.

¶10

Shri Rajesh Kumar Mishra, learned brief holder for the State could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. Learned brief holder for the State does not contest the criminal history of the applicant as disclosed in the bail application.

¶11

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.

¶12

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.

¶13

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

¶14

Let the applicant- Rahul Nat @ Kariya @ Jumrati involved

¶15

in Case Crime No. 0176 of 2020 at Police StationSukhpura, District- Ballia under Section 8/20 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.

¶16

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

¶17

The applicant will not influence any witness.

¶18

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

¶19

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.

¶20

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

¶21

Order Date :- 8.12.2021 Pravin

Rahul Nat @ Kariya @ Jumrati v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Nat @ Kariya @ Jumrati 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

Vikki Vs State of U.P. and Another

Amit Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P.

Deepu Vs State of U.P.

Ravindrapal Singh @ Rinku Vs State of U.P.

Rama Nand Sagar @ Tuntun Vs State of U.P.

Tarikat Vs State of U.P. and Another