Allowed

Shahrukh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC11 Mar 2022BAIL/2441/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a bail application filed by Shahrukh, implicating under the N.D.P.S. Act. The grant was based on the absence of witness testimony for recovery, alleged procedural lapse regarding Section 50 compliance, and the applicant's existing bail status in other cases.

What did the court decide?

The applicant Shahrukh is released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions against tampering with evidence and intimidation of witnesses.

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

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2441 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Shahrukh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sriram Dhar Dubey,Rahul Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.

¶5

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

¶6

It is submitted that in this case applicant has been implicated falsely. Allegedly, 250 gms. alprazolam has been said to be recovered from the possession of the applicant which is little more than the commercial quantity and is easily available in the medical shops. The criminal history of 10 cases against the applicant has been explained and in all the cases he is on bail. There is no witness of the alleged recovery. No compliance of Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act has been done by the police at the time of arrest of the applicant. Applicant is languishing in jail since 10.03.2020 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.

¶7

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail.

¶8

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the period applicant remained in jail and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶9

Let the applicant Shahrukh involved in Case Crime No.184 of 2020, under Section 21/22 N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station Vrindavan, District Mathura, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions.

¶10

The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶11

The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶12

The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶13

The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶14

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

¶15

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶16

Order Date :- 11.3.2022 Ashok Gupta

¶17

Digitally signed by ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA Date: 2022.03.15 17:23:52 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shahrukh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shahrukh 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

Anar Singh Vs State of U.P.

Shankar Sachdeva Vs Union of India

Vicky Vs State of U.P.

Intezar Vs State of U.P.

Avneesh and Another Vs State of U.P.

Shubham Tiwari @ Shivam Vs State of U.P.