Allowed

Munish v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC21 Oct 2022BAIL/46141/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed bail application in a narcotics possession case. The Court held that the quantity involved was below commercial quantity, prosecution evidence lacked corroboration, and there was a violation of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. Bail was granted with standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail with a personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions regarding trial cooperation and non-interference with evidence.

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

¶1

Court No. - 43

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 46141 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Munish Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Sharma,Prashant Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shiv Shanker Prasad,J.

¶5

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

¶6

By means of the present application, the applicant- Munish seeks bail in Case Crime No. 337 of 2022, under Sections 8/15 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Police Station Didauli, District Amroha, during the pendency of trial.

¶7

The allegation in the first information report against the applicant is that he was found in possession of 2.450 Kg of Doda (Churapost).

¶8

It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that 2 Kg, 450 gm contraband article, i.e., Doda (Churapost) allegedly recovered from the possession of the applicant is well below the commercial quantity and the prosecution case is totally false and concocted one. It is further stated by learned counsel for the applicant that neither any recovery has been made from the applicant nor any independent witness is there. Violation of Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act has also been alleged. Criminal history of the accused-appellant has been duly explained in para 13 of the affidavit. It is further contended that the applicant is languishing in jail since 27.08.2022 and he deserves to be released on bail. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with the trial.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail.

¶10

Considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tempering of the witnesses and prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of

¶11

the charge and reformative theory of punishment, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

¶12

Let the applicant- Munish 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 :-

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

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.

¶17

Order Date :- 21.10.2022 Abhishek Singh

¶18

Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SINGH Date: 2022.10.21 15:35:46 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Munish v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Munish 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

Sonu Tiwari Vs State of U.P.

Zahid Vs State of U.P.

Akmal Vs State of U.P.

Subhash @ Allu Vs State of U.P.

Gulfam Vs State of U.P.

Sarfaraj Vs State of U.P.