Allowed

Sonu v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC9 Dec 2022BAIL/35084/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed bail to the applicant charged under the NDPS Act after a commercial quantity was recovered from him. The court relied on Apex Court precedents, noting lack of chemical analysis report and magnetic seizure to grant bail despite the commercial quantity charge.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail on personal bond and two sureties with conditions against tampering with evidence, seeking adjournments, or further criminal activity.

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

¶1

Court No. - 90

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 35084 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Sonu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mumtaz Ali,Pranav Mishra,Shad Khan

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shiv Shanker Prasad,J.

¶6

Counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State, is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶8

By means of the present application, the applicant- Sonu seeks bail in Case Crime No. 529 of 2022, under Sections 8/22 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station- Loni, District- Ghaziabad, during the pendency of trial.

¶9

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is said to have been arrested on 18.05.2022 along with 126 gm of 'Alprazolam powder'. The applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and to victimize him. No incriminating article has been recovered from the possession of the applicant. There is no independent witness to support the prosecution version. There is no chemical analyst report that the alleged recovery is a contraband article. There is no compliance of mandatory provisions of NDPS Act with regard to search and seizure. The applicant has no previous criminal history. The applicant is languishing in jail since 18.05.2022 and he deserves to be released on bail. In case, the applicant is released on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶10

Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant on the ground that the recovery is of commercial quantity. The applicant has actively participated in the commission of the aforesaid offence.

¶11

The Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. Shiv Shankar Keshari, (2007) 7 SCC 798 has held that the court while considering the application for bail with reference to Section 37 of the Act is not called upon to record a finding of not guilty. It is for the limited purpose essentially confined to the question of releasing the accused on bail that the court is called upon to see

¶12

if there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and records its satisfaction about the existence of such grounds. But the court has not to consider the matter as if it is pronouncing a judgment of acquittal and recording a finding of not guilty.

¶13

Considering the facts of the case and keeping in mind, the ratio of the Apex Court's judgment in the case of Union of India vs. Shiv Shankar Keshari (supra) , larger mandate of Article 21 of the constitution of India, the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused-applicant, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interest of the public/ State and other circumstances, but without expressing any opinion on the merits, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail.

¶14

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the case, I am of the considered view that applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶15

Let the applicant- Sonu involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that :-

¶16

The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶17

The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶18

The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶19

In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶20

Order Date :- 9.12.2022/Abhishek Singh

¶21

Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SINGH Date: 2022.12.12 15:33:47 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sonu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonu 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sehwaz Vs State of U.P.

Neha @ Sadhna Singh Nurse Vs State of U.P. through Secretary Home

Irfan Vs State of U.P.

Chhotu Vs State of U.P.

Arvind Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Vikram Sharma Vs State of U.P.