Allowed

Mamta v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC22 Jul 2021BAIL/8255/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a case under Sections 8/21 NDPS Act. The court noted allegations of false recovery and non-compliance but granted bail finding it a fit case, subject to personal bond, two sureties, and specific conditions regarding presence in court and trial timeline.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail upon furnishing personal bond and two sureties subject to specified conditions regarding court appearances and trial conduct.

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

¶1

Court No. - 69 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8255 of 2021 Applicant :- Mamta Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Jawahir Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶3

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶4

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 40 of 2021, under Sections 8/21 of NDPS Act at Police Station Loni, District Ghaziabad.

¶5

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that false recovery of 120 grams Alprazolam is shown to have been made from the possession of the accused applicant. He has further submitted that at the time of arrest, mandatory provisions of NDPS Act has not been complied with. There is no independent eye witness of the alleged recovery, which has been shown by the police. He has further submitted that in case the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. The applicant is in jail since 10.01.2021.

¶6

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposes the application for bail. It is submitted that the Central Government has declared Alprazolam above 100 grams as commercial quantity of contraband.

¶7

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusal of record and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment as well as totality of facts and circumstances, at this stage without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.

¶8

Let the applicant- Mamta, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶9

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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 abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶10

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or through her counsel. In case of her absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against her under Section 229-A IPC.

¶11

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and

¶12

in order to secure her presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the Trial Court shall initiate proceedings against her, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A IPC.

¶13

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) 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 her in accordance with law.

¶14

(v) The Trial Court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial within a period of one year after the release of the applicant.

¶15

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

¶16

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶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

Order Date :- 22.7.2021/RavindraKSingh

Mamta v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mamta 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

Hariom Vs State of U.P.

Animesh Singh @ Anivesh Singh Vs State of U.P.

Aakash Pathak @ Akshat Vs State of U.P.

Pankaj Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Mahboob Ali Vs State of U.P.

Sudhir Kumar Vs State of U.P.