Allowed

Rustam v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC10 Jan 2022BAIL/46942/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court allowed a bail application under Section 8/20 of the N.D.P.S. Act. The applicant, Rustam, was charged with possession of charas. The court noted the recovery was below commercial quantity, no prior N.D.P.S. antecedents existed, and Section 50 provisions were absent. Bail was granted subject to personal bond and two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail by executing a personal bond and two reliable sureties in like amount.

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

¶1

Court No. - 76

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 46942 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Rustam Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Surendra Mohan Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.

¶5

Heard over bail application moved by applicant, Rustam, in Case Crime No. 19 of 2020, under Section- 8/20 of N.D.P.S. Act, P.S. Dumariyaganj, District- Siddharth Nagar.

¶6

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the accusedapplicant is innocent; he has been falsely implicated in this very case crime number and is languishing in jail since 12.02.2020; he is of no criminal antecedent of any case of N.D.P.S. Act though other criminal antecedents have been explained by him; there is no likelihood of fleeing from course of justice or tempering with evidence in case of release on bail; the alleged recovery of 500 grams of charas, i.e half of the commercial quantity, is with no independent public witness nor Section 50 of N.D.P.S. Act is there. Hence, bail has been prayed for.

¶7

Learned AGA has vehemently opposed on the basis of alleged nine criminal antecedents, received in instructions, but no criminal antecedent under N.D.P.S. Act is there.

¶8

Having heard learned counsels for both sides and gone through materials placed on record, it is apparent that the recovery is of less than commercial quantity and there is no criminal antecedents of applicant under N.D.P.S. Act.

¶9

Considering all above facts and circumstances, the nature of accusations, severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness and prima facie case, but, without commenting on merits of the case, a case for bail is made out.

¶10

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶11

Let the applicant, Rustam , involved in above mentioned case crime number be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and two reliable sureties, each, in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following

¶12

conditions:

¶13

The applicant will not tamper with the evidence.

¶14

The applicant will not indulge in any criminal activity.

¶15

The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and co-operate in the trial.

¶16

The applicant will appear regularly on each and every date fixed by the trial court, unless his personal appearance is exempted through counsel by the court concerned.

¶17

In the event of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the court below will be at liberty to proceed to cancel his bail.

¶18

Order Date :- 10.1.2022 Kamarjahan

Rustam v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rustam 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

Raj Vikram Singh Vs State of U.P.

Ram Kishun Sonkar Vs State of U.P.

Rinku Vs State of U.P.

Jitendra Vs State of U.P.

Ayyub Vs State of U.P.

Vinay Kumar @ Rahul Vs State of U.P.