Allowed

Akash @ Bamb v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC4 Nov 2022BAIL/32902/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a bail application filed by Akash @ Bamb under the NDPS Act. It observed that the alleged quantity was below the statutory minimum and recovery lacked independent witnesses, noting the lower court rejected the application stereotypically.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions regarding tampering with evidence, influencing witnesses, and appearance in court.

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

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32902 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Akash @ Bamb Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sudhanshu Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Sudhanshu Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Dinesh Kumar Srivastava, the learned Additional Government Advocate and perused the record.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶7

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 18 of 2022, under Sections 8/20 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station Makkhanpur, District Firozabad.

¶8

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an FIR lodged by a Sub-Inspector of Police alleging that on the basis of an information received from a Mukhbir, the applicant was apprehended and he confessed that he was having 01 kg. Charas. A single sample of 100 gram was taken out for being tested.

¶9

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 07.01.2022. 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.

¶10

The criminal history of the applicant has been explained by filing a supplementary affidavit as per which the applicant has been implicated in 14 cases, in six of which he has already been acquitted and in remaining eight cases he has been granted bail.

¶11

Page 1 of 3

¶12

The application for release of the applicant on bail filed before the learned court below has been rejected by means of an order dated 24.02.2022 passed by the learned Additional District and Session Judge, Court No.6 / Special Judge, Dacoity Affected Area, District Firozabad and the conclusion recorded by the learned court below is as follows:

¶13

ÞmijksDr lexz ifj’khyu ds vk/kkj ij bl fu"d"kZ ij igWqpk tkrk gS fd a vfHk;qDr ds ikl ld scjken xktk o gsjksbu dh O;olkf;d Js.kh o ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk mijksDr of.kZr fof/k O;oLFkk esa fn, x, fn’kk&funsZ’kksa dks –f"Vxr j[krs gq, vfHk;qDr dk tekur izkFkZuk i= Lohdkj fd;s tkus dk dksbZ Ik;kZIr vk/kkj ugha gSA vfHk;qDr }kjk izLrqr tekur izkFkZuk i= fujLr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSAß

¶14

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.

¶15

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances, what prima facie appears at this stage is that the allegation against the applicant that he was carrying 01 kg. Charas, which falls below the prescribed minimum quantity of the same as per the provision of Section 2 (viia) of the N.D.P.S. Act and that there are no independent witnesses of the alleged recovery.

¶16

The allegation against the applicant is that he was carrying 01 kg. charas and there is absolutely no allegation of Ganja and Charas having been recovered from the applicant. Prima facie it appears that the learned court below has rejected the bail application in a stereotype manner without applying its mind to facts of the case. Such a practice adopted by the learned court below cannot be appreciated.

¶17

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances and keeping in view the fact that since there are no independent witnesses of the alleged recovery; that the applicant has no criminal history and that the applicant has already been acquitted in as many as six cases, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in the aforesaid case.

¶18

Page 2 of 3

¶19

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

¶20

Let the applicant Akash @ Bamb be released on bail in Case Crime No. 18 of 2022, under Sections 8/20 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station Makkhanpur, District Firozabad 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:-

¶21

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

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 :- 4.11.2022 Ashish Pd.

¶27

Page 3 of 3

¶28

Digitally signed by ASHISH PRASAD Date: 2022.11.10 16:53:24 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Akash @ Bamb v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akash @ Bamb 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

Titu Vs State of U.P.

Gyan Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Zahid Vs State of U.P.

Saleem Vs State of U.P.

Suneel Kumar @ Sheela Vs State of U.P.

Mohd Azeem Vs State of U.P.