Dismissed

Munna v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC3 Jun 2022BAIL/3902/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal bail application under the N.D.P.S. Act, the High Court rejected the bail plea due to the grave nature of the offence and high likelihood of guilt. However, the Court observed that the order granting bail to a co-accused was not helpful as the full facts were missing in that order. Directing a speedy trial, the Court dismissed the applicant's bail application.

What did the court decide?

Bail application dismissed; trial to be concluded within one year; directions issued for witness attendance.

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

¶1

Court No. - 43

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3902 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Munna Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Avanish Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

By means of this bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No.544 of 2021 at Police Station Baradari District Bareilly under Section 8/21 N.D.P.S Act. The applicant is in jail since 07.07.2021.

¶6

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/ Special Judge N.D.P.S Act, Bareilly on 04.01.2022.

¶7

Shri Rishi Chaddha, learned A.G.A for the State submits that the applicant was arrested with 250gm of smack on his person. Later at the pointing out of the applicant and the co-accused Raju 1kg of Heroine and Rs. 40,00,000/- were recovered from the house of the applicant and co-accused Raju. The forensic science laboratory report confirms that the recovered substance was heroine. Mandatory provisions of N.D.P.S Act have been complied with. There is likelihood of the applicant having committed the offence. The offence is of grave nature.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant seeks parity in relief granted to the co-accused Raju. The order in respect of

¶9

Raju has been passed by me. It is evident from a perusal of the order that full and complete facts were not referenced to the Court.

¶10

In that view of the matter the order passed in the case of Raju cannot come to the aid of the applicant. Proceedings for recall of the order passed in the bail application of co-accused Raju have been initiated.

¶11

The trial court concerned is directed to conduct the trial on day to day basis and conclude the trial within a period of one year from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶12

The learned trial court shall take all necessary coercive measures as per law to ensure that timely attendance of witnesses in trial proceedings as and when required.

¶13

All police and administrative authorities of the State are also directed to come to the aid of the trial court to ensure the presence of witnesses on the appointed day before the trial court.

¶14

The bail application is dismissed.

¶15

Order Date :- 3.6.2022 Nadeem

¶16

Digitally signed by NADEEM AHMAD Date: 2022.06.06 16:48:09 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Munna v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Munna 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

Mohammad Ashif Vs State of U.P.

Yasveer Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Surendra Vs State of U.P.

Vijay Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Ashwani Joshi Vs State of U.P.

Krishna Mohan Mishra Vs State of U.P.