Allowed

Vimal v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC25 Jun 2021BAIL/5931/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed bail to applicant Vimal in an NDPS Act case involving counterfeit currency. Though involved in joint possession of contraband, co-accused already on bail and lack of independent witness led to release on personal bond with strict conditions per pandemic court directions.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail with personal bond and two sureties each, subject to strict undertaking conditions and compliance with lockdown relief directions.

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

¶1

Court No. - 2 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5931 of 2021

¶2

Applicant :- Vimal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Dhananjay Pratap Singh,Laxmi Kant Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. appearing for the State.

¶5

It is urged by learned counsel for the applicant that co-accused Neeraj and Shekhar have already been enlarged on bail. It is further urged that from joint possession of the accused, 31kg and 800gm contraband (Gaanza) was recovered; applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further urged that there is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. It is next contended that the mandatory provisions of the N.D.P.S., Act has not been complied with. It is submitted that the applicant has no other reported criminal antecedent and he is languishing in jail since 15.11.2020, there is no likelihood of early disposal of trial and the applicant undertakes that if enlarged on bail, he will never misuse his liberty and will cooperate in the trial.

¶6

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail.

¶7

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tempering of the witnesses and prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

¶8

Let the applicant Vimal, involved in Case Crime No. 564 of 2020, under Sections 8/20 (b)(ii) of NDPS Act, Police Station Jawan, District Aligarh be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶9

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 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

¶10

abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶11

(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 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶12

(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. is issued and the 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 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶13

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) 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.

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

(vii) 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.

¶17

In view of the extraordinary situation prevailing in the State due to Covid-19, the directions of this Court dated 6.4.2020 passed in Public Interest Litigation No. 564 of 2020 (In re vs. State of U.P.), shall also be complied.

¶18

The order reads thus:

¶19

"Looking to impediments in arranging sureties because of lockdown, while invoking powers under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, we deem it appropriate to order that all the accused-applicants whose bail applications came to be allowed on or after 15th March, 2020 but have not been released due to non-availability of sureties as a consequence to lockdown may be released on executing personal bond as ordered by the Court or to the satisfaction of the jail authorities

¶20

where such accused is imprisoned, provided the accusedapplicants undertakes to furnish required sureties within a period of one month from the date of his/her actual release."

¶21

Order Date :- 25.6.2021/Kuldeep

Vimal v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vimal 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

Akram Vs State of U.P.

Sonu @ Parvej Alam Vs State of U.P.

Rohit Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Sazid Vs State of U.P.

Udayveer Singh Vs State of U.P.

Ajeet Pandey Vs State of U.P.