Allowed

Abhishek v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC3 Dec 2021BAIL/41880/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Misc. Bail Application filed by Abhishek challenging implicatio in a case under the N.D.P.S. Act. The Single Bench noted lack of independent witnesses for recovery and potential false planting. It held it to be a fit case for bail during trial, imposing strict conditions on appearance and prosecution participation.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail on personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions of court attendance and no adjournments when witnesses are present.

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

¶1

Court No. - 83

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 41880 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Abhishek Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashwini Kumar Singh,Ranjana Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. Ashwini Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 1649 of 2021, under Sections 8/21 of N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station- Indrapuram, District- Ghaziabad, during pendency of trial.

¶7

It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is next contended that the substance alleged to have been recovered from the possession of the applicant is stated to be 'Alohrazolam'. The recovery of 110 gram of Alphrazolam has been falsely planted upon the applicant. There is no independent witness of the alleged recovery. The compliance of provisions of Sections 50 and 52 of N.D.P.S. Act have not been made. Applicant has implicated in six criminal cases after the implication of the present case. Applicant is languishing in jail since 2.7.2021. There is no likelihood of fleeing from course of justice or tampering with evidence. Hence, bail, during trial, has been prayed for.

¶8

Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶9

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.

¶10

Let the applicant- Abhishek, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond

¶11

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.

¶12

(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.

¶13

(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.

¶14

(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.

¶15

(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.

¶16

(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.

¶17

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

¶18

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.

¶19

Order Date :- 3.12.2021 S.K.

Abhishek v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhishek 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

Sikandar Gihar Vs State of U.P.

Ram Naresh Singh @ Lala Vs State of U.P.

Rajesh Pal @ Sonu Vs State of U.P.

Zeeshan Vs State of U.P.

Devendra Lodhi Vs State of U.P.

Jay Singh Vs State of U.P.