Allowed

Anil Maurya v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC26 Apr 2022BAIL/14419/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed bail to the applicant in a drug case under Sections 8 and 22 of the NDPS Act. The court found merit in the submission that mandatory provisions were violated and evidence was weak, ordering release on personal bond and two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in like amount, subject to conditions regarding evidence and witness interference.

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

¶1

Court No. - 68

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14419 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Anil Maurya Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Awadh Maurya,Kamalesh Kumar Nishad 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.10 of 2022 at Police Station-Bargadwan, DistrictMaharajganj under Section 8/22 of the N.D.P.S. Act. The applicant is in jail since 04.02.2022.

¶6

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court No.1), Maharajganj on 16.02.2022.

¶7

Shri Kamalesh Kumar Nishad, learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. The applicant resides in the neighbourhood of one pharmaceutical agency. The recovered drugs were stored by a pharmacist at the premises of the applicant. The applicant was informed by the pharmacist who is his neighbour that the latter has relevant documentation and legal authority to store and sell the aforesaid medicinal preparations. No forensic science laboratory report has been submitted which confirms that the aforesaid substances are either

¶8

spurious or noxious to public health. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. Prosecution evidence does not connect the applicant with the offence. The mandatory provisions of Section 42 and Section 50 of the NDPS Act have been violated. Learned counsel for the applicant has explained the criminal history of the applicant and contends that the same has no bearing on the instant case.

¶9

Shri Sunil Kumar Srivastava, 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-Anil Maurya 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 cancellation application before this Court.

¶17

Order Date :- 26.4.2022 Ashish Tripathi

¶18

Digitally signed by ASHISH NAYAN TRIPATHI Date: 2022.04.28 11:32:59 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Anil Maurya v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Maurya 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

Rai Anoop Prasad Vs State of U.P.

Nazir Hussain Vs State of U.P.

Videshi Ram Vs State of U.P.

Prathvipal Vs State of U.P.

Virendra Kumar Gond Vs State of U.P.

Brajendra @ Balla Vs State of U.P.