Allowed

Tarun Kumar v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC17 Oct 2022/11237/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous bail application under Section 8 and 21 of the NDPS Act, the High Court granted bail to the applicant who alleged police planting of contraband and non-compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act, imposing standard bail conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions prohibiting tampering with evidence and requiring presence for trial proceedings.

Tarun Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Anr. — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 15

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11237 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Tarun Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Applicant :- Rohit Kumar Tripathi,Anuja Bajpai,Deepak Kumar,Manshi,Nand Lal Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶5

Supplementary counter affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Girijesh Kumar Dwivedi, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

Instant application has been filed with a prayer to release the applicant on bail during the trial in Case Crime no.0588 of 2020, under Section 8/21 N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station Chinhat, District Lucknow.

¶8

As per the version of the First Information Report, 300 gm contraband substance i.e. Smack is said to be recovered from the possession of the applicant.

¶9

It is contended by learned counsel appearing for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely planted by the police in the instant matter. He next added that the contraband substance i.e. 300 gram of Smack is said to be recovered from the possession of the applicant which is slightest above than the commercial quantity. He further added that nothing has been recovered from the possession of the applicant though the police has planted him, as the police has arrested him two days prior of showing his arrest and in the police station itself the aforesaid recovery was shown. He next added that there is non-compliance of Section 50 N.D.P.S. Act and there is no independent public witness account of the alleged recovery. In support of his contention, learned counsel has relied upon the case of Arif Khan @ Agha Khan vs. State of Uttarakhand reported in (2018) 18 SCC 380, in which Apex Court has held that compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act is mandatorily required with regard to search and seizure. He further added that there is no any cogent piece of evidence to connect the applicant in the instant matter. He further submits that charge sheet has been filed in the instant matter and, as such, there is no possibility of fleeing away of the present applicant from the trial proceedings. He next added that there

¶10

are seven cases of criminal history against the applicant which has been explained in para 3 of the supplementary affidavit and except this there is no other criminal history of the applicant. He next submits that the applicant is law abiding citizen and is languishing in jail since 01.09.2020. In case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate in the investigation.

¶11

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the contention aforesaid and submits that 300 gm contraband substance, i.e., Smack has been recovered from the possession of the applicant and, as such, he is involved in committing the aforesaid crime and is not entitled for any relief, but he could not dispute the fact that there are seven cases of criminal antecedent of the applicant which has been explained in para 3 of the supplementary.

¶12

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of record, It is evident that as per the assertion of learned counsel appearing for the applicant that the applicant was arrested prior two days of the showing his arrest by the police and the aforesaid contraband substance has been planted by the police itself; further there is non compliance of Section 50 of N.D.P.S. Act, i.e., in violation of law laid down in the case of Arif Khan @ Agha Khan vs. State of Uttarakhand (supra); further there is no independent public eye witness of the recovery; the applicant has explained the previous criminal history of seven cases which has been explained in supplementary affidavit and he is languishing in jail since 01.09.2020.

¶13

Thus, 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 without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a case of bail.

¶14

Let the applicant- Tarun Kumar 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:-

¶15

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

¶16

(2) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he

¶17

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;

¶18

(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

¶19

(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.

¶20

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.

¶21

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.

¶22

Order Date :- 17.10.2022 S. Shivhare

¶23

Digitally signed by SHASHANK SHIVHARE Date: 2022.10.18 22:37:25 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Tarun Kumar v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tarun Kumar v. State of U.P. and Anr.

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

Ikram Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home Lucknow

Mohd. Nadeem Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Mohd. Jabir Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Prem Lata Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home

Vikas Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Basudev Goswami Vs State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Home, Lucknow