Allowed

Dhaniram v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC15 Nov 2022/8343/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8343 of 2021, the High Court granted bail to Dhaniram, an accused in a charas case under the NDPS Act. The Court relied on non-compliance of Section 50 NDPS Act and lack of independent witness, avoiding a judgment on the merits of the case.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on personal bond and two heavy sureties with conditions regarding tamper evidence, court attendance, and failure to appear.

Dhaniram Vs State of U.P. — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 27

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8343 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Dhaniram Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shailendra Pathak,Adarsh Kumar Tripathi,Gyanendra Pathak Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant, is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

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.145 of 2021, under Section 8/20 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, P.S. - Rupaideeha, District - Bahraich.

¶8

As per allegation in the F.I.R. contraband substance, i.e. 1 kg. 850 grams of Charas is said to have been recovered from the possession of the applicant by the police.

¶9

Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been planted by the police in the instant matter. He next added that 1 kg. and 850 grams of Charas is said to have been recovered from the possession of the applicant, is above than the commercial quantity. He next added that there is non-compliance of Section 50 of N.D.P.S. Act and in support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the Judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Arif Khan @ Agha Khan vs. State of Uttarakhand, (2018) 18 SCC 380 wherein it has been held that mandatory procedure of Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act has to be complied with in regard to search and recovery. He next added that there is no independent public eye witness of the aforesaid recovery and the the applicant has been implicated due to enmity by the police. He next added that the applicant has five cases criminal antecedent which he has explained in para-2 of the supplementary affidavit. He also added that the applicant is law abiding citizen and is languishing in jail since 15.05.2021. He further added that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse

¶10

the liberty of bail and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶11

Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer of bail and submits that applicant was involved in committing the aforesaid offence as contraband substance i.e. Charas has been recovered from his possession and, as such, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.

¶12

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of record, it is evident that recovered contraband substance, i.e. Charas is slight above than the commercial quantity; there is no independent public eye witness of the alleged recovery; there is non compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act; the criminal history of the applicant has been explained in para 2 of the supplementary affidavit and the applicant is languishing in jail since 15.05.2021.

¶13

Considering the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a case of bail.

¶14

Let the applicant Dhaniram 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:-

¶15

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

¶16

(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;

¶17

(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

¶18

(4) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section

¶19

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.

¶20

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.

¶21

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.

¶22

Order Date :- 15.11.2022 KR

¶23

(Shree Prakash Singh,J.)

¶24

Digitally signed by RABINDRA KUMAR Date: 2022.11.16 14:05:43 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Dhaniram v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhaniram 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arvind Verma Vs State of U.P.Thru.Secy.Home Dep.Lko.

Kanhaiya Lal Jaiswal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

Vishal Pal @ Goldi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

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.