Allowed

Manish Rai v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC19 Nov 2022BAIL/32045/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed bail in a NDPS case where search and seizure procedures were not followed, creating doubt against prosecution case. Riesque based on lack of criminal history and procedural irregularities in sample collection.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail with personal bond and two sureties subject to standard conditions including not tampering with evidence and appearing before the trial court.

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

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32045 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Manish Rai Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Tripathi, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Jitendra Kumar Jaiswal, the learned Additional Government Advocate and perused the record.

¶6

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 55 of 2022, under Sections 8/20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station Aharaura, District Mirzapur during pendency of the trial in the Court below.

¶7

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged by the Station House Officer of the Police Station against two named accused persons, including the applicant, alleging that upon an information received from a Mukhbir, a vehicle was intercepted and 52 packets containing ganja were recovered from the vehicle. Each of the packets varied in weight. The F.I.R. states that small quantities of the substance was taken out from the packets nos. 9 to 15 so as to make it a single sample of 24 gram. Similarly, a sample was collected from packets marked as serial nos. 16 to 35 and another sample was prepared by taking small quantities from packet nos. from 36 to 52.

¶8

In the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, it has been stated that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case and it has not been disputed in the counter affidavit that the applicant has no criminal history.

¶9

The applicant is languishing in jail since 27.03.2022.

¶10

What prima facie appears from a perusal of the averments made in the F.I.R. is that 52 packets were recovered from a vehicle, merely three samples were drawn and that there is nothing on record to show that the samples were drawn in presence of any Magistrate.

¶11

Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the prayer for grant of bail.

¶12

From the aforesaid facts, prima facie it appears that the provisions contained under Section 52-A of the NDPS Act as well as the mandatory procedure regarding search and seizure laid down in Standing Order No. 1 of 1989 issued by the State Government has not been followed in the present case.

¶13

The aforesaid facts raise doubts against the prosecution case and it gives rise to a reasonable ground for prima facie believing at this stage that the applicant may not be held guilty of the alleged offences.

¶14

Moreover, the applicant has no criminal history and, therefore, there is no ground to believe that in case the applicant is released on bail, he would again indulge in committing similar offences.

¶15

From the aforesaid discussions, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶16

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

¶17

Let the applicant Manish Rai be released on bail in Case Crime No. 55 of 2022, under Sections 8/20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station Aharaura, District Mirzapur 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:-

¶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 fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶21

(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.

¶22

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.

¶23

Order Date :- 19.11.2022

¶24

Jaswant

¶25

Digitally signed by JASWANT KUMAR Date: 2022.11.22 12:17:58 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Manish Rai v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manish Rai 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

Mahesh Chandra Verma Vs State of U.P.

Bablu Kumar Sonkar Vs State of U.P.

Urmila Devi Vs State of U.P.

Hariom Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rahul Sarswat Vs State of U.P. and Another

Neeraj Kumar Vs State of U.P.