Allowed

Ranjeet Verma v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC7 Jun 2021BAIL/5446/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted bail to the applicant Ranneet Verma charged under Sections 8/20 of the NDPS Act. The applicant alleged false implication, lack of independent witnesses for recovery, and non-compliance with N.D.P.S. Act provisions. The court relied on Dataram Singh and Article 21 to grant bail subject to conditions and directed expeditious trial.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicant Ranjeet Verma on bail with personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions of attendance and non-tampering.

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

¶1

Court No. - 67

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5446 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Ranjeet Verma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Amrendra Pratap Singh,Utsav Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Amrendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned AGA-I, appearing for the State and perused the material brought on record.

¶6

It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is next submitted that there is no independent witness of recovery and arrest which makes the recovery doubtful and the recovery and arrest was made from the public place. It is submitted that the accused party has not complied the mandatory provisions of sections 42, 50, 57 of N.D.P.S. Act. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant has also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused has also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required. It has also been submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 01.09.2020. It has been pointed out that the applicant has no criminal history.

¶7

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer.

¶8

Having heard the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment, and larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 2 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a case of bail.

¶9

Let applicant Ranjeet Verma be released on bail in Case Crime No. 85 of 2020, under Sections 8/20 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, Police Station Karma, District

¶10

Sonbhadra, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶11

The applicant will attend and co-operate the trial proceedings pending before the court concerned on the date fixed after release.

¶12

He will not tamper with the witnesses.

¶13

He will not indulge in any illegal activities during the bail period.

¶14

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶15

It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.

¶16

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

¶17

The trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the present case and conclude the same expeditiously preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of a computer generated copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment.

¶18

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.

¶19

The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.

¶20

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶21

Order Date :- 7.6.2021 Vikram

Ranjeet Verma v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjeet Verma 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

Smt. Sharda Devi Vs State of U.P.

Mahendra Kushwaha Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ramraj Vs State of U.P.

Raj Kumar Alias Lalla Vs State of U.P.

Satish Chandra Vs State of U.P.

Bhola @ Ravi Vs State of U.P.