Allowed

Shamshul v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC22 Nov 2022/10835/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under NDPS Act Sections 8/18, the court granted release to the applicant subject to furnishing a personal bond and two sureties. The order relied on alleged Section 50 non-compliance and noted the quantity was slightly above commercial limits, emphasizing Article 21 without deciding on case merits.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicant on bail with personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions regarding presence in court and non-interference with evidence.

Shamshul Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 27

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10835 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Shamshul Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Singh Chauhan,Alok Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶5

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

¶6

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release the applicant on bail during the trial in Case Crime No.516 of 2022, under Section 8/18 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, P.S. - Mohammadi, District - Lakhimpur Kheri.

¶7

As per allegation in the F.I.R. contraband substance, i.e. 318 grams of Smack is said to have been recovered from the possession of the applicant by the police.

¶8

Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely planted by the police in the instant matter. He next added that as per allegation in the first information report 318 grams of Smack is said be recovered from the possession of the present applicant which is slightest above the commercial quantity. There is no public eye witness of the alleged recovery. He submits that there is noncompliance of Section 50 of N.D.P.S. Act and in support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the Judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Arif Khan @ Agha Khan vs. State of Uttarakhand, (2018) 18 SCC 380 wherein it has been held that mandatory procedure of Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act has to be complied with in regard to search and recovery. The applicant has no criminal history as explained in para 12 of the bail application. The applicant is in jail since 18.07.2022. In case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶9

Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer of bail and submits that applicant was involved in committing the aforesaid offence as contraband substance i.e. smack has been recovered from his possession and, as such, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.

¶10

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of record, it is evident that recovered contraband substance, i.e. smack is slightest above the commercial quantity; there is no independent public eye witness of the alleged recovery; there is non compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act; the criminal history of the applicant has been explained in para 12 of the bail application; and the applicant is languishing in jail since 18.07.2022.

¶11

Considering the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate

¶12

of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a case of bail.

¶13

Let the applicant Shamshul involved in the aforementioned crime be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:-

¶14

(1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial;

¶15

(2) 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. He 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;

¶16

(3) 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.; and

¶17

(4) 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, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶18

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.

¶19

It is clarified that the observations 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 merits of the case.

¶20

Order Date :- 22.11.2022 KR

¶21

(Shree Prakash Singh,J.)

¶22

Digitally signed by RABINDRA KUMAR Date: 2022.11.24 10:24:54 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shamshul v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shamshul v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

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

Musheer @ Museem @ Mohsim Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Sectt. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Jagdish Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Rakesh Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. through Principal Secretary Home U.P Civil Secretariat Lucknow

Akhilesh Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Surendra Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Atiullah Ansari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.