Allowed

Rakesh @ Pilua v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC25 May 2022BAIL/11588/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail in an NDPS case involving possession of Alprazolam. The court noted alleged non-compliance with Section 50 NDPS and search procedures. Despite the offence being serious, the procedural irregularities and lack of imminent trial conclusion justified bail.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail with personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions of attendance and no adjournments.

Rakesh @ Pilua Vs State of U.P. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 78

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11588 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Rakesh @ Pilua Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶5

Counter and rejoinder affidavits filed in the Court today are taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the accused-applicant and learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶7

Present bail application has been filed by the accused-applicant involved in Case Crime No. 1069 of 2021, under Sections 8B/20 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short "N.D.P.S. Act") at Police Station Dadri, District Gautam Buddha Nagar.

¶8

Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that in the instant case, the applicant has falsely been implicated. The reasons of false implication are best known to the police, however, it appears that just to show good work and seek laurels from higher authorities, he has been implicated in the present crime. He also stated that the applicant is in jail since 07.12.2021 and the possibility of conclusion of trial in near future is extremely bleak. He also submitted that in the matter, charge sheet has been filed, as such, it is not possible for the applicant to tamper with the evidence, which is already on record or influence the witnesses of prosecution.

¶9

It is further stated that as per the case of prosecution, 200 gms. Alprazolam Powder was recovered from the possession of the applicant and as appears from the contents of FIR/recovery memo, only one sample of 50 gms. of Alprazolam Powder was prepared. The sample prepared is in violation of mandatory provisions of NDPS Act as also Circulars issued from time to time in relation to search, seizure and taking samples. Further submission is that the mandatory provisions related to search and seizure particularly Section 50 of NDPS Act was not complied with. The facts indicated in relation to compliance of Section 50 are completely false. The applicant was never informed about his right to be searched before the Magistrate. There is no public independent witness of alleged recovery so as to support the story of prosecution. The prayer is allow the bail application.

¶10

In regard to criminal history of the applicant, it is stated in rejoinder affidavit

¶11

that criminal history of 9 cases has wrongly been mentioned and there are only two case against the applicant, one is present case and other is Case Crime No. 820 of 2018, which relates to NDPS Act. In this case crime number, the applicant was released on bail vide order dated 22.10.2018. He submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, rigors of Section 37 would not be an impediment in granting the bail to the applicant.

¶12

It is lastly submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away from judicial custody or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty, terms and conditions of bail and will co-operate in the trial.

¶13

Learned A.G.A., on the basis of instructions, has opposed the prayer for bail. He submitted that quantity of contraband substance recovered from the possession of the applicant is above commercial quantity. He also says that aking note of the fact that the applicant is having criminal history of NDPS Act, he is not entitled to be released on bail. However, he could not dispute the other aspects of the case including in relation to non-compliance of mandatory procedure prescribed.

¶14

In response, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that in Case Crime No. 820 of 2018, the applicant was released on bail by the Court below taking note of the fact that there is no independent witness as also the fact related to noncompliance of Section 50 of NDPS Act. He further says that in the instant case also, the mandatory provisions as required have not been complied with. It is also stated that the Alprazolam Tablets are easily available in open market.

¶15

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, perusing the record and also considering the nature of allegations, arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties including in relation to non- compliance of mandatory provisions related to the recovery, search and seizure and taking sample, period of incarceration as also the possibility of conclusion of trial in near future and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I am of the view that a case for bail is made out.

¶16

Let the applicant- Rakesh @ Pilua be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bonds and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Magistrate/Court concerned, subject to following conditions :-

¶17

(i) 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.

¶18

(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 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶19

(iii) In case, the applicant misuse 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 fail 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.

¶20

(iv) 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. 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.

¶21

(v) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.

¶22

(vi) The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.

¶23

(vii) 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.

¶24

Order Date :- 25.5.2022 Arun/-

¶25

Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR GANGWAR Date: 2022.05.25 14:16:09 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rakesh @ Pilua v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh @ Pilua 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

Niranjan Ram Vs State of U.P.

Chandra Mohan Prajapati Vs State of U.P.

Rajesh Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Abhishek Chauhan Vs State of U.P.

Neeraj Vs State of U.P.

Pawan Gaud Vs State of U.P.