Allowed

Sintu Verma @ Anuj Kumar Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC5 Jul 2022/5108/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application under the NDPS Act, the Allahabad High Court granted bail to the accused who alleged non-compliance of Section 50. Balancing the severity of the charge and criminal history, the court found it a fit case for bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on security of personal bond and two sureties each.

Sintu Verma @ Anuj Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 16 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5108 of 2022 Applicant :- Sintu Verma @ Anuj Kumar Verma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Shatrughna Yadav,Rajit Ram Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶3

Heard Sri Rajit Ram, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Surendra Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶4

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 78 of 2022 , under Section 8/21 of The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station- Gosainganj, District Ayodhya, during the pendency of trial.

¶5

As per prosecution story, 12 grams of smack is said to have been recovered from the possession of the applicant on 31.03.2022.

¶6

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and to victimize him. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that there is no compliance of mandatory provision of Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that the recovered contraband is below the commercial quantity.

¶7

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that there is criminal history of six cases assigned to the applicant.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that of the said six cases, the applicant has been acquitted in three cases and in other three cases, he has been enlarged on bail. The bail orders have been annexed as annexure nos.6, 7 and 8 to the affidavit accompanying the bail application. The applicant is languishing in jail since 31.03.2022. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶9

In Arif Khan @ Agha Khan v. State of Uttarakhand (2018) 18 SCC 380 , in which the Apex Court held that Section 50 of the NDPS Act mandatorily required search of the suspect/accused to be carried out in the presence of a magistrate or Gazetted officer, even if such a suspect/accused had waived the right to be taken to a magistrate or Gazetted Officer.

¶10

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusal of record and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment as well as totality of facts and circumstances, at this stage without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.

¶11

Let the applicant- Sintu Verma @ Anuj Kumar Verma, who is involved in aforementioned case 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶12

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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.

¶13

(ii) 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 IPC.

¶14

(iii) 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., may be issued and if 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 IPC.

¶15

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶16

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶17

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶18

Order Date :- 5.7.2022/Ravi Kant

¶19

Digitally signed by RAVI KANT Date: 2022.07.05 16:14:18 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sintu Verma @ Anuj Kumar Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sintu Verma @ Anuj Kumar Verma 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 Ahmad and Anr. Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home

Shubham Raj Vs State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Home Department Civil Secretariat, U.P., Lucknow

Mashrur Gaddi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Guddu Mishra @ Rajesh Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Shyam Lal Vs State of U.P. through Principal Secretary (Home) Civil Secretariat Lucknow

Mewa Lal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.