Allowed

Santosh Singh @ Banti v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC2 Dec 2021BAIL/5477/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court allowed bail to Santosh Singh @ Banti, an applicant charged under NDPS Act, holding that he was entitled to enlargement due to false implication, absence of forensic evidence, and jail overcrowding during the pandemic.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in like amount subject to conditions not to tamper with evidence or influence witnesses.

Santosh Singh @ Banti Vs State of U.P. — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 66

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5477 of 2021 Applicant :- Santosh Singh @ Banti Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rahul Rathi,Udai Chandani Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶4

Heard Shri Udai Chandani, learned counsel assisted by Sri Aman Kumar, 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. 416 of 2020 at Police Station-Juhi, DistrictKanpur Nagar under Section 8/2 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 District and Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar, on 26.11.2020.

¶7

The applicant is in jail since 22.10.2020, pursuant to the said F.I.R.

¶8

Shri Udai Chandani, learned counsel assisted by Sri Aman Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. The applicant is a Coolie. 25 packets of Binophinex Injection, 2 ML ampoules was planted on the person of the applicant to frame him in the instant case to show proficiency of police investigators. 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 confirms that the substance allegedly recovered is prohibited under the NDPS Act. There is no independent witness or public witness to the alleged recovery. It is admitted in the counter affidavit that the recovered substance is not prohibited under the NDPS Act.

¶9

Apart from this case learned counsel for the applicant does not have any 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.

¶10

Shri Rajesh Kumar Mishra, learned brief holder for the State could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. Learned AGA 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- Santosh Singh @ Banti involved in Case Crime No. 416 of 2020 at Police Station-Juhi, District- Kanpur Nagar under Section 8/2 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.

¶15

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

¶16

The applicant will not influence any witness.

¶17

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

¶18

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.

¶19

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

¶20

Order Date :- 2.12.2021

¶21

Pravin

Santosh Singh @ Banti v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Singh @ Banti 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

Vishal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Arun @ Monu Vs State of U.P.

Ram Kripal Vs State of U.P.

Sonu Kumar Gond Vs State of U.P.

Anil Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Jishan Vs State of U.P.