Allowed

Sheebu @ Akram v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC6 Aug 2022BAIL/27238/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Applicant filed a bail application in a narcotics trial, alleging false implication and non-compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act. The Court found reasonable grounds to believe the applicant was not guilty. Bail was allowed on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the court below.

Sheebu @ Akram Vs State of U.P. — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27238 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Sheebu @ Akram Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shashank Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶5

1.Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶6

2.Heard Sri Deepak Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri Shashank Tripathi, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Amit Kumar Shukla, the learned State Counsel and perused the record.

¶7

3.The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Special Session Trial No. 1194 of 2021 arising out of Case Crime No. 0100. of 2021, under Sections 21/22, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station G.R.P., District Kanpur Nagar during pendency of the trial in the Court below.

¶8

4.The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of a first information report dated 04.06.2021 lodged by an Inspector of G.R.P. alleging that upon an information received from a Mukhbir (informer), two persons namely (1) Shaukat @ Nabbu and (2) Sheebu @ Akram (the applicant), have been apprehended, 120 gm. Alprazolam powder was recovered from Shaukat @ Nabbu and 110 gm. Alprazolam powder was recovered from the applicant Sheebu @ Akram.

¶9

5.In the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, it has been stated that the applicant works as a painter and the police was forcing him to become an informer and upon the applicant's refusal, he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It has been stated that the police has not followed the mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act during search and seizure.

¶10

6.Placing reliance of the judgment of Hon'ble Supeme Court in the case of Vijay singh Chandubha Jadeja vs. State of Gujarat, (2011) 1 SCC 609, the learned counsel for the applicant states that Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act is mandatory and the same was required to be complied with strictly. Failure to comply with the provision of

¶11

Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act vitiates the proceedings against the applicant.

¶12

7.The learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that although the alleged recovery is said to have been made from a railway station, there are no independent witnesses of the alleged recovery.

¶13

8.The affidavit contains an undertaking that in case the applicant is released on bail, he will cooperate with the trial and he will not tamper with any evidence.

¶14

9.In the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant, it has been stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in another case bearing Case Crime No. 422 of 2018, under Sections 379, 411 IPC, Police Station G.R.P., District Kanpur Naga, in which the applicant has been granted bail by means of an order dated 13.09.2018 passed by the learned court below in Bail Application No. 2629 of 2018.

¶15

10.The applicant is languishing in jail since 04.06.2021.

¶16

11.Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the prayer for grant of bail, but he could not dispute the aforesaid aspects of the matter.

¶17

9.Having regard to the aforesaid facts and keeping in view the submissions that there are no independent witnesses of the alleged recovery and the mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act has not been complied with by the police, I am of the view that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the applicant may not be held guilty of alleged offence. Further, there is no reason to believe that he is likely to commit any offence, if he is released on bail.

¶18

10.In light of the preceding discussion and without making any observation on the merit of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

¶19

11.Let the applicant - Sheebu @ Akram be released on bail in Special Session Trial No. 1194 of 2021 arising out of Case Crime No. 0100. of 2021, under Sections 21/22, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station G.R.P., District Kanpur Nagar on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below, subject to the following conditions:-

¶20

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the

¶21

trial.

¶22

(ii) The applicant will not influence any witness.

¶23

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

¶24

(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.

¶25

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

¶26

Order Date :- 6.8.2022 Ashish Pd.

¶27

Digitally signed by ASHISH PRASAD Date: 2022.08.08 17:42:52 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sheebu @ Akram v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sheebu @ Akram 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

Aakash Vs State of U.P.

Mannan Vs State of U.P.

Shaleem Vs State of U.P.

Ram Newaj Yadav and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

Marks Savar Vs State of U.P.

Sanju Alias Sanjeev Chaturvedi Vs State of U.P.