Allowed

Dileep Kumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC22 Jul 2021BAIL/5973/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal miscellaneous bail application was filed by Dileep Kumar challenging his detention in a case involving alleged possession of narcotic substances. The court noted deficiencies in recovery evidence and lack of independent witness. Citing the pandamic situation and Article 21, the court granted bail on personal bond with sureties and imposed standard conditions including attendance at t

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of Rs. one lakh each each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned.

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

¶1

Court No. - 71

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5973 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Dileep Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Viveka Nand Rai,Sudhanshu Pandey 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 is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that 600 grams Alprazolam is alleged to have been recovered from the possession of the applicant, when in fact no such recovery has taken place. It is next contended that it is not known as to how the weighment of allegedly recovered substance was done. There is no independent witness of the alleged recovery. Learned counsel for the applicant further contended that mandatory provisions of N.D.P.S Act has not been complied with in the present case. It is next contended that the applicant does not have criminal history prior to lodging of the present case. It is next contended that there are no chances of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence. It is further contended that the applicant has no criminal history and the applicant is in jail since 17.12.2020 and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶7

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

¶8

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.

¶9

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.

¶10

Let applicant- Dileep Kumar , be released on bail in Case Crime No.394 of 2020, under Sections- 21/22 of N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station- Jamunapar, District- Mathura, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties (of Rs. one lakh) 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 party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.

¶18

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

¶19

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.

¶20

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 certified copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment.

¶21

Order Date :- 22.7.2021 Dev/-

Dileep Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dileep Kumar 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

Aslam Vs State of U.P.

Chetan Ram Vs State of U.P.

Imran @ Pancholi Vs State of U.P.

Akash Alias Surya Alias Gagan Vs State of U.P.

Sohan Pal Vs State of U.P.

Rukam Pal @ Karuwa Vs State of U.P.