Allowed

Suhail v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC23 Nov 2021BAIL/41520/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under the NDPS Act involving alleged trafficking of Alprazolam, the court rejected the prosecution's challenges to the applicant's submissions on false recovery and lack of independent witnesses. Citing jail overcrowding due to COVID-19 and noting the A.G.A. could not satisfactorily dispute the counsel's arguments, the court allowed bail with standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each with conditions against tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses.

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

¶1

Court No. - 66

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 41520 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Suhail Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Saumitra Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Saumitra Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vikas Sahai, learned AGA for the State.

¶6

A first information report was lodged against the applicant as Case Crime No.323 of 2021 at Police Station-Shimbhavali, District-Hapur on 15.08.2021 under Section 8/21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985.

¶7

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Hapur on 04.09.2021.

¶8

The applicant is in jail since 15.08.2021, pursuant to the said F.I.R.

¶9

Shri Saumitra Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. False recovery of 6 mg Alprazolam tablets has been shown from the applicant. The weight of the recovered substance is below the notified commercial quantity. The weight of recovered substance as stated in the F.I.R. is unreliable as

¶10

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. No forensic science laboratory report has been submitted which confirms that the substance allegedly recovered is prohibited under the NDPS Act. Apart from the instant case, the applicant does not have criminal history. 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.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. for the State could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶12

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.

¶13

I see merit in the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant and hold that the applicant

¶14

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-Suhail involved in Case Crime No.323 of 2021 at Police Station-Shimbhavali, District-Hapur on 15.08.2021 under Section 8/21 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

¶22

cancellation application before this Court. Order Date :- 23.11.2021 Ashish Tripathi

Suhail v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suhail 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

Vikas Hawaldar Vs State of U.P.

Nittar @ Netrapal Vs State of U.P.

Sarfaraz @ oni Vs State of U.P.

Munesh Vs State of U.P.

Shivnath Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jeetu @ Jitendra Vs State of U.P.