Allowed

Vivek Kumar @ Vivek Kumar Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC23 Nov 2022BAIL/31676/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court granted bail to applicant charged under NDPS Act for possession of 1.6 kg Charas. Grant relied on procedural deficiencies in sample recovery and lack of required notification to superior officers, without adjudicating merits.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on personal bond and two sureties each, subject to conditions regarding tampering with evidence and appearing before trial court.

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

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31676 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Vivek Kumar @ Vivek Kumar Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Maurya Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶5

1.Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Maurya, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Amit Kumar Shukla, the learned State Counsel and perused the record.

¶6

2.Counter affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶7

3.The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 11 of 2021, under Sections 8/22 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Police Station Kotwali, District Deoria.

¶8

4.The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an FIR lodged by the Station House Office alleging that upon an information received from a Mukhbir, a truck was intercepted, which was being driven by the applicant and it is alleged that the applicant confessed that the truck was stolen and 1.600 kg. Charas was recovered from the truck.

¶9

5.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 16.05.2021. 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.

¶10

6.In para-12 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, it has been stated that after his arrest, the applicant has been implicated in total of four cases, including the present case and except for Case Crime No. 512 of 2021, under Section 3(1) U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, the applicant has been granted bail in the other three cases.

¶11

7.The State has filed a counter affidavit annexing a copy of the FSL, Varanasi stating that the substance recovered from the applicant, was found to be Charas.

¶12

8.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.

¶13

9.I have considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. From a narration made in the FIR, it appears that samples of the substance recovered from the truck has not been drawn in presence of a Magistrate, moreover there is nothing on record to indicate that information of the recovery was sent to the higher officer as required by Section 42(2) of the Act. The aforesaid deficiencies indicate a total non-compliance of provision of Sections 52-A and 42(2) of the Act.

¶14

10.Without recording any findings on the merits of the case, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for enlargement of the applicant on bail.

¶15

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

¶16

12.Let the applicant Vivek Kumar @ Vivek Kumar Singh be released on bail in Case Crime No. 11 of 2021, under Sections 8/22 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Police Station Kotwali, District Deoria 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:-

¶17

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

¶18

(ii) The applicant will not influence any witness.

¶19

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

¶20

(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.

¶21

13.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.

¶22

Order Date :- 23.11.2022 Ashish Pd.

¶23

Digitally signed by ASHISH PRASAD Date: 2022.11.29 18:16:56 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vivek Kumar @ Vivek Kumar Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vivek Kumar @ Vivek Kumar 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

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.

Ankit Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sagar Vs State of U.P.

Kishan Yadav Vs State of U.P.