Allowed

Imran @ Pancholi v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC20 Jul 2021BAIL/5589/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted bail to the applicant, who has no prior criminal history in N.D.P.S. cases, noting the failure to comply with mandatory recovery provisions under the N.D.P.S. Act and citing constitutional principles.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on a personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions of attendance, no tampering with witnesses, and no illegal activities.

Imran @ Pancholi Vs State of U.P. — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 71

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5589 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Imran @ Pancholi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sandeep Kumar Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sanjay 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 550 gram contraband article, i.e., Diazepam is said to have been recovered from the possession of the applicant. He further submits that there is no compliance of mandatory provisions of Sections 50 and 52 of the N.D.P.S. Act, hence the recovery is bad in the eyes of law. The applicant has no criminal history with respect to the N.D.P.S. Act. It has also been submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 19.11.2020. Criminal history of the applicant has properly been explained in para 9 to the affidavit filed in support of bail application.

¶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- Imran @ Pancholi , be released on bail in Case Crime No. 794 of 2020, under Sections- 8/22 IPC, Police Station- Kotwali Nagar, District- Etah, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶10

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

¶11

He will not tamper with the witnesses.

¶12

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

¶13

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.

¶14

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.

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

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.

¶19

Order Date :- 20.7.2021 Arti

Imran @ Pancholi v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Imran @ Pancholi 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

Sonu Pandey @ Raghvendra Vs State of U.P.

Gulab Singh Vs State of U.P.

Praveen Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Visahram Vs State of U.P.

Aslam Vs State of U.P.

Chetan Ram Vs State of U.P.