Allowed

Raju Yadav @ Raju Mota @ Raju Kantewala v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC13 Apr 2022BAIL/10760/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad allowed a bail application under Section 8/20 of the N.D.P.S. Act. The court found merit in submissions regarding false implication, planting of drugs, and violation of Section 42 and 50 without addressing merits.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on personal bond and two sureties conditioned not to tamper with evidence, influence witnesses, appear regularly, and not make inducements.

Raju Yadav @ Raju Mota @ Raju Kantewala Vs State of U.P. — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 68

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10760 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Raju Yadav @ Raju Mota @ Raju Kantewala Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Yogesh Kumar Srivastava,Noor Muhammad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

By means of this bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No.110 of 2022 at Police Station-Uttar, DistrictFirozabad under Section 8/20 of the N.D.P.S. Act. The applicant is in jail since 07.02.2022.

¶6

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.6/Special Judge (N.D.P.S. Act), Firozabad on 16.02.2022.

¶7

Shri Noor Muhammad, learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. 1 Kg. 600 grams charas was planted on the applicant to frame him in the instant case to show proficiency of police investigators. The weight of the recovered substance as stated in the F.I.R. is unreliable as accurate scientific instruments were not used for weighment. The weight of the recovered substance is in fact much less than 1 Kg. which is the notified commercial quantity under the NDPS Act. No

¶8

forensic science laboratory report has been submitted which confirms that the substance allegedly recovered is prohibited under the NDPS Act. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. The mandatory provisions of Section 42 and Section 50 of the NDPS Act have been violated. Explaining the criminal history of the applicant, learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has become an easy scapegoat for the police authorities who falsely nominated him in a number of cases only to burnish their credentials. The applicant has never misused the liberty of bail granted to him in the said cases. The said cases do not relate to any heinous crime and have no bearing on this bail application. The applicant is not a flight risk. Lastly it is contended by the learned counsel for applicant that the applicant shall not abscond and will cooperate in the criminal law proceedings. The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence nor influence the witnesses in any manner.

¶9

Shri Nafees Ahmad, learned A.G.A could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. However, he does not contest the criminal history of the applicant as disclosed in the supplementary affidavit.

¶10

I see merit in the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant and hold that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶11

In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.

¶12

Let the applicant-Raju Yadav @ Raju Mota @ Raju Kantewala be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions.

¶13

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

¶14

(ii) The applicant will not influence any witness. (iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶15

(iv) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶16

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail

¶17

cancellation application before this Court. Order Date :- 13.4.2022 Ashish Tripathi

¶18

Digitally signed by ASHISH NAYAN TRIPATHI Date: 2022.04.18 09:46:06 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Raju Yadav @ Raju Mota @ Raju Kantewala v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju Yadav @ Raju Mota @ Raju Kantewala 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rashid Vs State of U.P.

Ravindra Vs State of U.P.

Rakib Vs State of U.P.

Rihan Vs State of U.P.

Balveer Vs State of U.P.

Mohd. Afsaar Alias Afsar Vs State of U.P.