Allowed

Sangram Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC4 Nov 2022BAIL/28805/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal miscellaneous bail application, theAllahabad High Court granted bail to the applicant accused under Section 8/20 of the N.D.P.S. Act for possession of charas. The court observed that the case was a fit one for bail, considering the absence of public witnesses and compliance issues regarding Section 50 of the Act.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on personal bond and two reliable sureties of like amount subject to specified conditions regarding appearance and conduct during trial.

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

¶1

Court No. - 92

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28805 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Sangram Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ansar Ahmad,Sandhya Chaturvedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Gajendra Kumar,J.

¶5

Counter and rejoinder affidavits filed in the Court today is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P. and perused the record.

¶7

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No.177 of 2022, under Section 8/20 N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station- Acchalda, District- Ayraiya.

¶8

As per the prosecution story, the police personnel recovered 250 gms charas from the possession of the applicant.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is innocent person and has falsely been implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. It is submitted that the alleged recovery of 250 gms charas is below the commercial quantity. It is further submitted that there was no independent or public witness to prove the alleged recovery. The mandatory provisions contained under Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act have not been complied with. Further submission is that the applicant has criminal history of one case which has been explained in para-8 of the affidavit. It is also submitted that there is no apprehension that after being released on bail, the applicant may flee from the course of law or may, otherwise, misuse the liberty of bail. It is further submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 04.06.2022 and the possibility of conclusion of trial in near future is very bleak.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail, but he has not disputed the above contention made by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶11

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, perusing the record and also considering the nature of allegations, arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it

¶12

to be a fit case for granting bail.

¶13

Let applicant, Sangram Singh, be released on bail in the aforesaid case on his furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶14

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶15

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶16

(iii) In case, the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶17

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶18

Any violation of above conditions will be treated misuse of bail and learned Court below will be at liberty to pass appropriate order in the matter regarding cancellation of bail.

¶19

Order Date :- 4.11.2022 Shiv

¶20

Digitally signed by SHIV KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2022.11.09 10:32:09 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sangram Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sangram Singh 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

Kamal Saini Vs State of U.P.

Faheem Vs State of U.P.

Chanchal Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Vineeta Vs State of U.P.

Rajesh Verma Vs State of U.P.

Deepak Vs State of U.P.