Allowed

Ramsevak v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC13 Dec 2022BAIL/37021/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to the applicant charged with offences under Sections 8/22 N.D.P.S. Act. The Court noted lack of independent witnesses, alleged planted evidence, and non-compliance with statutory procedures for seizures. Bail was secured through a personal bond and two local sureties.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

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

¶1

Court No. - 90

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 37021 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Ramsevak Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- P.K. Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shiv Shanker Prasad,J.

¶5

Counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State in the Court today is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Mr. P.K. Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Amit Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the State as well as perused the material on record.

¶7

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant- Ramsevak with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 285 of 2022, under Sections 8/22 N.D.P.S. Act, Police StationBidhnu, District-Kanpur Nagar, during the pendency of the trial.

¶8

As per the prosecution case, on an information received from a Police Informer, the applicant and the co-accused were apprehended by the Informant and other Police Personnels and two k.g. charas has been recovered from the possession of the applicant, whereas one k.g. charas has been recovered from the co-accused.

¶9

The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present first information report lodged by the Police is nothing but a bundle of lie and the same has been lodged only for exploiting the applicant by indulging his name in a fake, false and frivolous case. The entire prosecution story as unfolded in the first information report is absolutely a self-made story projected by the informant. It is next argued that the alleged recovery of 2 k..g. charas shown against the applicant is planted one by the Police as there is no independent or public witness of the alleged recovery. There is also no direct or indirect evidence on record from the which it is established that the applicant is involved in the commission of the alleged offence. Compliance of Sections 42 and 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act has also not been made nor any inventory in compliance of Section 52 of N.D.P.S. has been prepared . The applicant has no criminal history except the present one. It is next contended that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail. The applicant is in jail since 24th June, 2022. The applicant has undergone more than six months of incarceration as on date.

¶10

Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but he could not dispute the factual submissions as urged by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶11

Considering the nature of the offence, material/evidence brought on record, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties as well as the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Versus State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 , let the applicant involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:-

¶12

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶13

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶14

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶15

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶16

It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.

¶17

(Shiv Shanker Prasad, J.)

¶18

Order Date :- 13.12.2022

¶19

Sushil/-

¶20

Digitally signed by SUSHIL KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.12.14 10:25:01 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ramsevak v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramsevak 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

Gautam Srivastava Alias Gattu Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Pradeep @ Lalla Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Babita Sharma Vs State of U.P.and 3 Others

Mandeep Vs State of U.P.

Afjal Warsi Vs State of U.P.

Saddiq Ansari @ Bhola Ansari Vs State of U.P.