Allowed

Uday Raj v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC4 Jul 2022BAIL/14746/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment grants bail to the applicant in a criminal matter under Section 8/18 of the N.D.P.S. Act. The court relied on Supreme Court precedent and Article 21, holding that the quantum of opium recovered was below commercial quantity and the case was fit for bail grant.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; applicant to be released on bail on executing personal bond and furnishing two sureties.

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

¶1

Court No. - 77

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14746 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Uday Raj Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Mishra,Ali Hasan,Istiyaq Ali Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.

¶5

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

¶6

By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in Case Crime No. 27 of 2022, under section 8/18 N.D.P.S. Act, P.S. Visaratganj, districtBareilly, is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

¶7

As per prosecution case during checking of vehicles the police arrested the present accused and recovered 400 gm. opium from his possession.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the only allegation against the applicant is that 400 gms. of opium was recovered from the possession of the applicant, which is below commercial quantity. He further submitted that the there has been no compliance of Section-50 of N.D.P.S. Act. He also submits that criminal history has been properly explained in paragraph 5 of the affidavit accompanying bail application. He has lastly submitted that the applicant who is in jail since 29.1.2022 and if he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶9

The prayer for bail has been vehemently opposed by learned A.G.A.

¶10

The Apex Court in the Case of Union of India vs. Shiv Shankar Keshari, (2007) 7 SCC 798 has held that the court while considering the application for bail with reference to Section 37 of the Act is not called upon to record a finding of not guilty. It is for the limited purpose essentially confined to the question of releasing the accused on bail that the court is called upon to see if there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and records its satisfaction about the existence of such grounds. But the court has not to consider the matter as if it is pronouncing a judgment of acquittal and recording a finding of not guilty.

¶11

Considering the facts of the case and keeping in mind, the ratio of the Apex Court's judgment in the case of Union of India vs. Shiv Shankar Keshari, (2007) 7 SCC 798, larger mandate of Article 21 of the constitution of India, the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused-applicant, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interest of the public/ State and other circumstances, but without expressing any opinion on the merits, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail.

¶12

Let the applicant, Uday Raj be released on bail on his executing personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:-

¶13

The applicant will continue to attend and co-operate in the trial pending before the court concerned on the date fixed after release.

¶14

He will not tamper with the witnesses.

¶15

He will not indulge in any illegal activities during the bail period.It is further directed that the identity, status and residence proof of the sureties be verified by the authorities concerned before they are accepted.

¶16

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the trial court will be at liberty to cancel the bail.

¶17

It is further directed that the identity, status and residence proof of the sureties be verified by the authorities concerned before they are accepted.

¶18

Order Date :- 4.7.2022 Faridul

¶19

Digitally signed by FAREEDUL HASAN Date: 2022.07.06 09:56:55 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Uday Raj v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uday Raj 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

Jitendra Singh and 2 Ohters Vs State of U.P.

Mohammad Ahmad Vs State of U.P.

Rohit Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Anil Sain Vs State of U.P.

Saddam Vs State of U.P.

Anshu Kumar Gupta @ Laloo Vs State of U.P.