Allowed

Imran @ Man v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC17 Jan 2022/13134/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed the bail application of the applicant charged under Sections 8/20 N.D.P.S. Act. Despite concerns over procedural lapses during evidence recovery and the commercial quantity of drugs, the court found the applicant was a fit case for bail as there was no likelihood of repeating the offence, considering his lack of criminal history.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties with strict conditions.

Imran @ Man Vs State of U.P. — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 13

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13134 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Imran @ Man Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vinay Kumar Tiwari 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 been arrested from his house by the police in the night of 11.9.2021 and he has been falsely roped in the present case, showing recovery of 1250gm of charas from his bag which was in his right hand. The applicant was personally searched and his bag too was searched and therefore, compliance of provisions of Section 50 N.D.P.S. act was mandatory. The applicant has not been apprised of his right available under Section 50 N.D.P.S. Act in regard to his search before the Magistrate or a gazetted officer.

¶7

Learned counsel next contended that there is no independent public witness of the alleged recovery. Other mandatory provisions under Sections 42, 55 and 57 of N.D.P.S. Act have also not been complied with.

¶8

Learned counsel also submits that the applicant has explained the criminal history and he is in jail since 11.9.2021.

¶9

It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released on bail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant. He submits that the recovery of alleged contraband is of commercial quantity and the applicant is not liable to be enlarged on bail.

¶11

Having regard to all the facts and circumstances and keeping in view the nature of offence, evidence in support of accusation, complicity of the accused, arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, as also considering twin conditions as mentioned in section 37(1)(b) of N.D.P.S. Act having been satisfied, in as much as there is no likelihood of the accused applicant of committing similar offence in future; there is no

¶12

previous criminal history, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail and accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶13

Let the applicant Imran alias Man, involved in Case Crime No.177/2021 under Sections 8/20 N.D.P.S. Act, P.S.Kaudiya, district Gonda, 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:-

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

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

Imran @ Man v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Imran @ Man 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.