Allowed

Laxmikant v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC15 Dec 2022BAIL/45301/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted bail to an applicant accused of possession of narcotics under NDPS Act. The order was based on procedural violations during recovery, specifically the absence of a gazetted officer and magistrate during search and sample collection, citing Union of India vs. Mohanlal.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Laxmikant released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions of non-tampering with evidence and witnesses.

Laxmikant Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45301 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Laxmikant Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶5

1.Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Dubey, Advocate holding brief of Sri Sanjay Kumar Dubey, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Amit Kumar Shukla, the learned State Counsel and perused the record.

¶6

2.The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 280 of 2022, under Section 22 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station Kotwali Hathras, District Hathras.

¶7

3.The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of a first information report lodged by a Sub-Inspector of Police stating that the applicant was apprehended and during his personal search. 610 grams Diazepam powder was recovered from the pocket of the lower worn by him. As per the FIR version, the substance was identified by the informant by its smell.

¶8

4.It has been averred in the affidavit filed in support of the bail application that the applicant is an innocent person, he has been falsely implicated in the case and he is in jail since 03.08.2022. 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.

¶9

5.A supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant discloses his involvement in Case Crime No. 228 of 2021, under Section 13 of Gambling Act, P.S. Kotwali Hathras, District Hathras, in which the applicant has already been granted bail by the learned court below.

¶10

6.Per contra, the learned State Counsel has opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant on the basis of instructions and he has submitted that as per the report of substance tested at a Forensic Science Laboratory, Aligarh, the substance has been found to be Diazepam. but he could not dispute the aforesaid

¶11

aspects of the matter.

¶12

7.Having considered the aforesaid facts and submissions and keeping in view the fact that although, the substance has been recovered during personal search of the applicant, the search has not been carried out in presence of a gazetted officer and the sample has not been drawn in presence of a Magistrate; that the mandatory provisions of Sections 50 and 52-A, the Standing Order No.1 of 1989 of the Central Government and the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Mohanlal, (2016) 3 SCC 379 have not been followed in the present case, I am of the view that aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for enlargement of the applicant on bail.

¶13

8.In light of the preceding discussion and without making any observation on the merit of the case, the instant bail application is allowed .

¶14

9.Let the applicant Laxmikant be released on bail in Case Crime No. 280 of 2022, under Section 22 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station Kotwali Hathras, District Hathras 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:-

¶15

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶16

(ii) The applicant will not influence any witness.

¶17

(iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶18

(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.

¶19

10.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.

¶20

Order Date :- 15.12.2022 Ashish Pd.

¶21

Digitally signed by ASHISH PRASAD Date: 2022.12.21 13:45:09 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Laxmikant v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laxmikant 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

Akash Gupta Vs State of U.P.

Surendra Rai Vs State of U.P.

Sunil Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P.

Rustam and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

Vijay Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Krishnanand Vs State of U.P.