Allowed

Surendra Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Allahabad HC16 Nov 2022/4331/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted bail to Surendra Kumar in an N.D.P.S. case, citing non-compliance of Section 50, lack of public witnesses, and absence of criminal history. The applicant must furnish a personal bond and two heavy sureties subject to specific conditions regarding trial attendance and conduct.

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties subject to conditions of conduct and attendance.

Surendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy… — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 27

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4331 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Surendra Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Ravindra Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Aniruddh Kumar Singh-I, 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. 07 of 2022, under Section 8/21 N.D.P.S. Act, P.S.- Munshiganj, 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 500 gram contraband substance i.e., smack has been shown from the possession of the applicant. 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. It is specifically mentioned in paragraph 13 of the bail application that applicant has no previous criminal history. The applicant is in jail since 18.01.2022. 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 as per FSL report recovered contraband substance is is heroine and aforesaid recovery has been done from 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; there is no public witness of the alleged offence; there is no criminal history of the applicant; coupled with the fact that he is languishing in jail since

¶10

18.01.2022, thus without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.

¶11

Let the applicant- Surendra Kumar involved in the aforementioned crime be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and two heavy 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 :- 16.11.2022 Ujjawal

¶19

Digitally signed by UJJAWAL PARJAPATI Date: 2022.11.16 18:48:14 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Surendra Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surendra Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of 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

Saurabh Yadav @ Nirmal Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Vinodanand Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Princ Secy. Cikvil Sectt. Home Lko.

Pradeep Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru the Secy. Home Lko.

Vandana Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Majeed Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Umesh Kumar @ Umesh Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.