Allowed

Saurav Pariyar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC3 Feb 2022BAIL/2018/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed bail to the applicant in a case under the N.D.P.S. Act involving recovery of 128 grams of Tramadol. The court observed the quantity was below commercial limit, noted non-compliance of Section 50, and lack of prior criminal history, finding it a fit and proper case for bail.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in equal amount subject to specified conditions.

Saurav Pariyar Vs State of U.P. — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 44

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2018 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Saurav Pariyar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ravindra Prakash Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.

¶5

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

¶6

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.167 of 2021, under Section 8/21/23 of N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station Dhebarua, District Siddharth Nagar.

¶7

It is contended that the application has no previous criminal history and the recovery of 128 gram Tramadol is much below the commercial quantity of 250 gram. It is also stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and that there is no compliance of the provisions contained in section 50 of N.D.P.S. Act. It is submitted that the trial is not likely to be concluded shortly on account of Covid-19 pandemic. It is also contended that the applicant has no other criminal history and applicant undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty of bail. The applicant is in jail since 10.08.2021.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer of bail but could not dispute the argument made by learned counsel for applicant.

¶9

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusal of record, severity of punishment, totality of facts and circumstances, at this stage without expressing any view on the merits of the case, the Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for bail.

¶10

Let the applicant Saurav Pariyar be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶11

(i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence.

¶12

(ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶13

(iii) The applicant will not indulge in any unlawful activities.

¶14

(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever.

¶15

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶16

Accordingly, the instant bail application is allowed.

¶17

Order Date :- 3.2.2022 Ashok Kr.

Saurav Pariyar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saurav Pariyar 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

Nathanlal @ Radhe Kol Vs State of U.P.

Salman Vs State of U.P.

Amir Vs State of U.P.

Monu Vs State of U.P.

Afsar Ali Vs State of U.P.

Kalu @ Surendra Vs State of U.P through Its Secretary Home Up at Lucknow