Allowed

Sukhdev Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC17 Jan 2022/11883/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application under the N.D.P.S. Act, the court noted non-compliance with Section 50 and the applicant's lack of criminal history, concluding it was a fit case for bail. The bail was granted on a personal bond and two sureties with standard conditions to ensure court appearance and prevent evidence tampering.

What did the court decide?

Grants bail to the applicant on personal bond and two sureties, imposing conditions against tampering with evidence and ensuring court attendance.

Sukhdev Singh Vs State of U.P. — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 13

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11883 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Sukhdev Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anand Kumar Shukla,Amit Kumar Awasthi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.

¶6

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has no criminal history. He has been falsely implicated in this case due police rivalry.

¶7

It is contended on behalf of the applicant that perusal of recovery memo depicts that initially a search was conducted in which a country made pistol 315 bore was recovered. Thereafter, again the applicant was searched, alleged contraband 245 gram alprazolam powder was recovered.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the alleged recovery is false and planted. There is no compliance of mandatory provisions of Section 50 of N.D.P.S. Act. The mode of recovery is suspicious as in the first search, no contraband was found whereas in the second search, the alleged contraband was found. The search has not made before the gazetted officer or the Magistrate.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and submits that recovered contraband is commercial but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶10

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and also considering the nature of allegations, arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the applicant has no criminal history, prima facie, it appears that compliance of Section 50 NDPS Act is not done and applicant is in jail since 14.07.2021, charge sheet in case has been filed and twin conditions under Section 37 stand satisfied in this case and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶11

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶12

Let the applicant, Sukhdev Singh involved in Case Crime No.168 of 2021 under Sections 8/21 N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station - Tikonia, District - Kheri 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 which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶13

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶14

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶15

(iii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement,

¶16

threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶17

(iv) 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. 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.

¶18

(v) The applicant 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.

¶19

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

¶20

Order Date :- 17.1.2022 KR

Sukhdev Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukhdev Singh 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

Santosh Kumar Fair Price Shop Holder Vs State of Up and Another

Devi Sharan Mishra Vs State of Up Thru Prin Secy Home and Another

Jaglal and 2 Oth Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secry.,Home Dept.Civil Secrt. Lko and Another

Sanjay Tiwari Vs State of U.P.

Girija Shankar Rai Vs State of U.P.

Anant Ram Vs State of U.P.