Allowed

Altaf Alam v. State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy Home Lucknow

Allahabad HC19 Jan 2022/447/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court allowed bail to an narcotics offender convicted of offenses under Sections 8 and 21 of the NDPS Act. Granted relief on personal bond and two sureties as recovered morphine was below commercial quantity and no samples were drawn on spot.

What did the court decide?

Applicant to be released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

Altaf Alam Vs State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy Home Lucknow — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 13

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 447 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Altaf Alam Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy Home Lucknow Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Pandey 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 allegedly, from the personal search of the applicant, 195gm morphine has been recovered by the police. The police party has not drawn sample on the spot which is in violation of the guidelines issued by the Government of India vide notification No.1/88.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was personally searched , therefore, it was incumbent on the police party to have complied the mandatory provisions of Section 50 of N.D.P.S. Act which has not been done in this case as he has not been apprised about his right to be searched before the gazetted officer or the Magistrate.

¶8

It is also contended that the recovered contraband is below the minimum commercial quantity as provided in the Schedule appended with the NDPS Act and therefore, the stringent conditions as contained in Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act are not attracted in this case.

¶9

Learned counsel also submits that the applicant is in jail since 1.12.2021.

¶10

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.

¶11

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.

¶12

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and also considering the nature of allegations, recovered substance is below commercial quantity, applicant has no criminal history, arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, for the period for which he is in jail and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for

¶13

enlarging the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶14

Let the applicant Altaf Alam, involved in Case Crime No.916 of 2021 under Sections 8/21 N.D.P.S. Act, P.S. Kotwali Nagar, district Barabanki, 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:-

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

(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.

¶18

(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.

¶19

(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.

¶20

(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.

¶21

Order Date :- 19.1.2022 kkb/

Altaf Alam v. State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy Home Lucknow

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Altaf Alam v. State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy Home Lucknow

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

Bulande Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home

Ashish Pathak Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy.,Home Deptt.,Lko

Rahmatullah @ Tullah Vs State of U.P.Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow

Deepu Saroj @ Dileep Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Nafees Ahmad Vs State of U.P.

Manoj Prajpati Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.