Allowed

Munendra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC31 Aug 2022/8530/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Criminal Misc. Bail Application, the Allahabad High Court granted bail to the applicant charged under Sections 8/21 of the NDPS Act. The court relied on past precedents regarding mandatory search procedures and noted prior acquittal. Bail was granted subject to personal bond and specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is released on bail in the aforesaid case upon furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount.

Munendra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 15

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8530 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Munendra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Chandra Bhushan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Chandra Bhushan, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Vijai Prakash, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record of the case.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant Munendra under Section 439 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 359 of 2022, under Sections 8/21 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, registered at Police Station Behta Gokul, District Hardoi, during pendency of the trial.

¶7

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive on the basis of planted recovery. The alleged recovery of one country made pistol and 150 tablets total weight 18.525 gm as mention of Alprazolam from the left pocket of the pant of the applicant, as shown in the first information report, which is below commercial quantity, is made without complying the mandatory provisions of Sections 42 & 50 of the NDPS Act. It is further submitted that there is no adequate or substantial compliance with Section 42 of NDPS Act and it is a question of fact to be decided in each case as held by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Karnail Singh Vs. State of Haryana, (2009) 8 Supreme Court Cases 539. It is further submitted that in order to make search and recovery of the contraband articles from the body of the applicant, search and recovery has to be inconformity with the requirements of Section 50 N.D.P.S. Act. A search and recovery made from the applicant of the alleged contraband does not satisfy the mandatory requirements of Section 50 as held by Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja Vs. State of Gujarat, (2011) 1 SCC 609.

¶8

It is further submitted that applicant has criminal history of one case being Case Crime No. 386 of 2016, under Section 8/20 of N.D.P.S. Act, in which he has been acquitted by the trial Court

¶9

vide judgment and order dated 13.12.2017.

¶10

It is next contended that there is no other criminal antecedent to his credit except the aforesaid case. It is next submitted that there is also no possibility of the applicant either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses. The applicant, who is languishing in jail since 01.07.2021, undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty, if granted. It has also been pointed out that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.

¶11

Per contra , learned A.G.A. has supported the order passed by the court below and vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and submits that the allegations involved are very serious in nature and the delay in lodging the F.I.R. cannot be said to be fatal to the case at this juncture while considering the application of bail. But they would not point out any material to the contrary. He further submits that in case the applicant is released on bail, he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

¶12

Upon considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for bail. Hence, the present bail application is allowed.

¶13

Let applicant, Munendra be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions-

¶14

(i) 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.

¶15

(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

¶16

(iii) 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 of Cr.P.C.

¶17

(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 the trial court.

¶18

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.

¶19

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

¶20

It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.

¶21

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the applicant along-with a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.

¶22

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶23

Order Date :- 31.8.2022 aks

¶24

Digitally signed by ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Date: 2022.09.08 09:16:53 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Munendra v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Munendra 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

Tansen and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Shakeel Ahmad Warsi and Anr. Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow and Anr.

Kamlesh Pal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Bhagwati Raidas Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Rakesh Pasi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Kuddus Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru Secy Home Deptt U.P. Govt Civil Sectt Lko