Allowed

Arvind v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC18 Feb 2021BAIL/9101/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail application sought enlargement for an applicant accused of possessing 120 gms of alprazolam below commercial quantity without Section 50 compliance. The court granted bail, citing the Apex Court's criterion that bail under Section 37 N.D.P.S. Act does not require a not guilty finding, relying on Article 21 and the specific facts.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to the applicant on personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions including compliance with trial attendance and no tampering with witnesses.

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

¶1

Court No. - 90

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9101 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Arvind Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Chandra Prakash Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

¶6

By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in Case Crime No. 980 of 2020, under Section 8/21 N.D.P.S. Act, P.S. Surajpur Noida, district-Gautam Budh Nagar and is in jail since 18.12.2020, is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the only allegation against the applicant is that 120 gms. of alprazolam was recovered from the possession of the applicant, which is below commercial quantity. He further submitted that the there has been no compliance of Section-50 of N.D.P.S. Act. He has lastly submitted that the applicant who has no criminal antecedents to his credit, is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶8

The prayer for bail has been vehemently opposed by learned A.G.A.

¶9

The Apex Court in the Case of Union of India vs. Shiv Shankar Keshari, (2007) 7 SCC 798 has held that the court while considering the application for bail with reference to Section 37 of the Act is not called upon to record a finding of not guilty. It is for the limited purpose essentially confined to the question of releasing the accused on bail that the court is called upon to see if there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and records its satisfaction about the existence of such grounds. But the court has not to consider the matter as if it is pronouncing a judgment of acquittal and recording a finding of not guilty.

¶10

Considering the facts of the case and keeping in mind, the ratio of the Apex Court's judgment in the case of Union of India vs. Shiv Shankar Keshari, (2007) 7 SCC 798, larger mandate of Article 21 of the constitution of India, the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused-applicant, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interest of the public/ State and other circumstances, but without expressing any opinion on the merits, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail.

¶11

Let the applicant, Arvind be released on bail on his executing personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:-

¶12

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

¶13

He will not tamper with the witnesses.

¶14

He will not indulge in any illegal activities during the bail period.It is further directed that the identity, status and residence proof of the sureties be verified by the authorities concerned before they are accepted.

¶15

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the trial court will be at liberty to cancel the bail.

¶16

It is further directed that the identity, status and residence proof of the sureties be verified by the authorities concerned before they are accepted.

¶17

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by learned counsel for the applicant along with a self attested identity proof of the said persons (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number (s) to which the said Aadhar Card is linked before the concerned Court/Authority/Official.

¶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 :- 18.2.2021

¶20

Faridul

Arvind v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arvind 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

Hamid Vs State of U.P.

Babloo Kannaujiya Vs State of U.P.

Banka Vs State of U.P.

Smt.Nirmala Devi Vs State of U.P.

Aszad and Another Vs State of U.P.

Fahimuddin Alias Guddu Vs State of U.P.