Allowed

Satyam Rajpoot v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC14 Nov 2022BAIL/33553/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a bail application under the NDPS Act, 1985. The court held that the quantity of seized ganja was below commercial quantity and mandatory sample collection procedures were not followed, raising doubts about the prosecution case and creating a reasonable ground to believe the applicant may not be guilty.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each on conditions not to tamper with evidence or influence witnesses.

Satyam Rajpoot Vs State of U.P. — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33553 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Satyam Rajpoot Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Avdhesh Narayan Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Avdhesh Narayan Tiwari, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Shashi Shekhar Tiwari, 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. 213 of 2022, under Sections 8/20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station Jariya, District Hamirpur 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 a Sub Inspector of Police alleging that the applicant was apprehended on the basis of suspicion and 1.150 k.g. ganja was recovered from his possession. It is stated that a single sample of 100 gram ganja was taken out for being examined.

¶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.

¶9

The applicant's previous criminal history has been explained in paragraph No. 9 of the affidavit, in two of which, under Goonda Act, the proceedings had elapsed, and in five other cases, the applicant has been released on bail.

¶10

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

¶11

I have considered the aforesaid facts and submissions. Prima facie it appears at this stage that the quantity allegedly recovered from the applicant falls much below the prescribed commercial quantity and that the mandatory procedure prescribed for collection of samples has not been followed in the present case.

¶12

The aforesaid facts raise doubts against the prosecution case

¶13

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

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 Satyam Rajpoot be released on bail in Case Crime No. 213 of 2022, under Sections 8/20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station Jariya, District Hamirpur 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 :- 14.11.2022

¶24

Jaswant

¶25

Digitally signed by JASWANT KUMAR Date: 2022.11.16 12:25:58 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Satyam Rajpoot v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satyam Rajpoot 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shyamji @ Chakoi and 4 Others Vs State of U.P.

Attu@ Sultan Vs State of U.P.

Kallu Alias Mukesh Shukla Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Panku @ Upendra Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P.

Satendra Vs State of U.P.

Jai Prakash Yadav Vs State of U.P.