Allowed

Vinod Gupta v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC3 Dec 2022BAIL/35533/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge granted bail to the applicant in a case involving possession and transportation of ganja under the NDPS Act. The Court relied on the fact that other accused, including the driver and cleaner, had already been released on bail and noted procedural lapses regarding sample preparation.

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant Vinod Gupta on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties subject to undertaking conditions regarding tampering with evidence and attendance in court.

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

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 35533 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Vinod Gupta Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shyam Sunder,Ashutosh Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶5

1.Heard Sri Ashutosh Gupta, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri D.K. Srivastava, the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

2.The present bail application has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 230 of 2022, under Sections 8/20, 60(2) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, P.S. Naujheel, District Mathura.

¶7

3.The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an FIR lodged by a Sub-Inspector of Police against four named accused persons, including the applicant, stating that on the basis of an information received from a Mukhbir, a mini truck was intercepted. The co-accused Arun Kumar Yadav was driver of the truck and the other co-accused Krishna Yadav was its cleaner. It is alleged that the applicant and another co-accused Gajendra Gupta were standing near the truck. Seven plastic sacks were found from the truck, six of which were carrying six packet each and one sack carried four packets. Each of the packet contained 05 kg. Ganja totaling to 200 kg. It is mentioned in the FIR that the driver of the truck stated that he was transporting Ganja from Orissa on the instructions of the applicant and the other co-accused person Devendra Gupta.

¶8

4.The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the co-accused Krishna Yadav has already been granted bail by means of an order dated 29.11.2022 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 41155 of 2022.

¶9

5.It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the case set up against the applicant is similar to that set up against the other co-accused person, who has already been released on bail, therefore, the applicant is also entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity.

¶10

6.It has been averred in the affidavit filed in support of the bail

¶11

application that the applicant is an innocent person, he has been falsely implicated in the case, he is having no previous criminal history and he is in jail since 07.06.2022. 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.

¶12

7.A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the applicant disclosing his involvement in 02 more cases, in one ofwhich the applicant has been granted bail and one case under Section 110-G Cr.P.C. stands closed upon expiry of the stipulated period.

¶13

8.It is mentioned in the bail order of co-accused Arun Kumar Yadav that prima facie it appears that sample has not been drawn from all the 40 packets recovered from the truck and a single sample has been prepared. Moreover, sample has not been drawn in presence of the Magistrate. It prima facie indicates that Section 52-A of the NDPS Act and the provisions contained in Standing Order No.1 of 1989 have not been followed in the present case.

¶14

9.Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the prayer for grant of bail but he could not dispute that the case set up against the applicant is similar to that set up against the other co-accused person, who has already been released on bail.

¶15

10.Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the driver and cleaner of the truck have already been granted bail and the applicant has been implicated in the present case on the statement of the driver that he was transporting the substance on the instructions of the applicant; that the applicant has been implicated on the basis of statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act given by the driver as also on the basis of his confessional statement, which is not admissible in evidence, I am of the view that the applicant is also entitled to be released on bail in the aforesaid case.

¶16

11.Let the applicant - Vinod Gupta be released on bail inCase Crime No. 230 of 2022, under Sections 8/20, 60(2) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, P.S. Naujheel, District Mathura on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to 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

12.In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move an application bail before this Court seeking cancellation of bail.

¶22

Order Date :- 3.12.2022 Ashish Pd.

¶23

Digitally signed by ASHISH PRASAD Date: 2022.12.07 18:08:57 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vinod Gupta v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod Gupta 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

Ram Ujagir Yadav Vs D.R.I.

Sandeep Vs State of U.P.

Ramsanehi Nishad Vs State of U.P.

Pramod Tiwari Vs State of U.P.

Ajay Singh Vs State of U.P.

Kivikali Vs State of U.P.