Allowed

Mintu Prasad v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC22 Nov 2022BAIL/30554/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal bail application regarding 115 kg ganja recovery under NDPS Act, the High Court noted procedural lapses in sample collection per Section 52(A). Since the applicant faced only co-accused statements and had no criminal history, bail was allowed.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail subject to personal bond, two sureties, and conditions against tampering with evidence, influencing witnesses, and communicating with witnesses.

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

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30554 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Mintu Prasad Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Prakhar Srivastava,Anurag Shrivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶5

Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Sri Anurag Srivastava, the learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Dinesh Kumar Srivastava, the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 1208 of 2022, under Sections 8, 20, 29 of N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station Belipar, District Gorakhpur.

¶8

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an FIR lodged by the Station House Officer, alleging that on the basis of an information received from a Mukhbir, a vehicle was intercepted and 99 packets-83 packets weighing 1 kg. and 16 packets weighing 2 kg, containing a total of 115 kg ganja were recovered from the vehicle.

¶9

The FIR mentions that small quantities of the substance was taken out from each of 99 packets so as to prepare a single sample of 500 gram and it was sent for being tested. It is stated that the vehicle was being driven by co-accused Deepak Kumar and the other persons sitting in the vehicle was co-accused Rahul Prasad and both of them stated that they were transporting the ganja on instructions of the applicant.

¶10

It has been averred in the affidavit filed in support of the bail application that the applicant is an innocent person, he has been falsely implicated in the case and he is in jail since 4.6.2022. It has also been stated in the affidavit that there is no possibility of the applicant tampering with any evidence and in such circumstances, the applicant is entitled for bail. It is also stated in the affidavit that the applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail and he will fully cooperate in the investigation.

¶11

The State has filed counter affidavit annexing therewith a copy of the relevant extract of case diary as per which from a

¶12

scrutiny a call detail records, it has been found that the applicant had talked to the co-accused Deepak Kumar on mobile phone between 12.4.2022 to 16.4.2022 for as many as 60 times. A copy of the test report prepared by the Forensic Laboratory, Varanasi has been annexed with the counter affidavit which mention the substance tested to be ganja.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the allegation leveled in the FIR regarding the applicant having talked to the co-accused Deepak Kumar is baseless that the aforesaid mobile phone has not been assigned to the applicant in the FIR and the aforesaid number does not belong to the FIR.

¶14

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

¶15

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances, what prima facie appears at this stage is that although the substance was recovered from 99 packets some of which weighed 1 kg and the other weighed 2 kg, a single sample has been taken out for being tested; there is nothing on record to indicate that the samples have been collected in the presence of the Magistrate and an inventory has been prepared and photographs taken, as required in Section 52(A) of N.D.P.S. Act. Samples have not been drawn from all the packets recovered.

¶16

The applicant has been implicated in the present case merely on the basis of statement of the co-accused persons recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, coupled with the fact that the applicant has no criminal history, this Court is of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient to make out a case for enlargement of the applicant on bail. The bail application is accordingly allowed .

¶17

Let the applicant - Mintu Prasad be released on bail in Case Crime No. 1208 of 2022, under Sections 8, 20, 29 of N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station Belipar, District Gorakhpur on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶18

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

¶19

(ii) The applicant will not influence any witness.

¶20

(iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date

¶21

fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶22

(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.

¶23

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

¶24

Order Date :- 22.11.2022 Mini

¶25

Digitally signed by MINI KANAUJIYA Date: 2022.11.24 16:34:45 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mintu Prasad v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mintu Prasad 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

Rakesh Kumar Patel Vs State of U.P.

Begraj Vs State of U.P.

Sanjay Paswan Vs State of U.P.

Reetu Singh Vs State of U.P.

Tippu @ Ram Ratan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ravindra Singh Vs State of U.P.