Allowed

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

Allahabad HC22 Nov 2022/13493/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court appears to be inclined to grant bail to the applicant, an accused under the NDPS Act, citing non-compliance of Section 50 by prosecution, absence of public witnesses, explained criminal antecedents, and the applicant's prolonged detention in jail.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in the like amount, each conditioned to appear in court and not tamper with evidence.

Akhilesh Yadav 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. - 13493 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Akhilesh Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Sukh Deo Singh,Paritosh Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Nirmal Kumar Pandey, 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. 118 of 2022, under Section 8/20/23 N.D.P.S. Act, P.S.- Piparpur, District - Amethi.

¶7

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. As per allegation 10 Kg contraband substance i.e., ganja has been shown from the possession of the applicant which is below than commercial quantity. There is no public witness of the alleged incident. He further submits that there is non compliance of Section 50 of N.D.P.S. Act. 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 held that Section 50 of the NDPS Act mandatorily requires to be followed while conducting search and seizure. He further submits that criminal history of the applicant has been explained in para 10 of the bail application. The applicant is in jail since 06.08.2022. In case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶8

Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer of bail and submits that applicant was involved in committing the aforesaid offence and contraband substance i.e., ganja has been recovered from the possession of the applicant and, as such, he is involved in committing the aforesaid offence.

¶9

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of record, it is evident that there is non compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act; further there is no public witness of the alleged offence; further criminal history of the applicant has been explained aforesaid; coupled with the fact that he is languishing in jail since 06.08.2022, thus without commenting

¶10

on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.

¶11

Let the applicant- Akhilesh Yadav 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:-

¶12

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

¶13

(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;

¶14

(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

¶15

(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.

¶16

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.

¶17

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.

¶18

Order Date :- 22.11.2022 Ujjawal

¶19

Digitally signed by UJJAWAL PARJAPATI Date: 2022.11.22 17:14:25 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akhilesh Yadav 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

Shamshul 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.