Allowed

Javed Ahmed v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC15 Nov 2022BAIL/51152/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application under the N.D.P.S. Act, the High Court granted bail to the accused, Javed Ahmed, after examining the prosecution's failure to prove recovery and non-compliance with procedural safeguards. The order imposes strict conditions regarding court attendance and prohibits seeking unnecessary adjournments.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on a personal bond and two local sureties, subject to strict conditions regarding court attendance and prohibition of adjournments.

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

¶1

Court No. - 90

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 51152 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Javed Ahmed Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shiv Shanker Prasad,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned counsel for the State as well as perused the material on record.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant- Javed Ahmed with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 795 of 2022, under Sections 8/20 N.D.P.S. Act, Police StationPuranpur, District-Pilibhit, during the pendency of the trial.

¶7

The prosecution case is that on 17th October, 2022 at about 10.00 a.m., on the information received from a Police Informer, the informant along with other Police personnels arrested the applicant and 295 grams cannabis (charas) is alleged to be haven recovered from the possession of the applicant on the basis of which the present first information report has been lodged and also the recovery memo has been prepared by the Police.

¶8

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant 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.

¶9

It is next argued that the alleged recovery of 295 grams cannabis (Charas) from the possession of the applicant is planted one by the Police. The alleged recovery is below the commercial quantity. There is also no independent of public witness from the which it is established that the applicant is involved in the commission of the alleged offence. Compliance of Sections 50 and 52 of the N.D.P.S. Act has also not been made. There is also no analysis report of any Analyst on the basis of which it can be said that the recovered material is contraband. The applicant has no criminal history. 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 17th October, 2022.

¶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 the nature of the offence, material/evidence

¶12

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:-

¶13

(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.

¶14

(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.

¶15

(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.

¶16

(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.

¶17

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.

¶18

(Shiv Shanker Prasad, J.)

¶19

Order Date :- 15.11.2022

¶20

Sushil/-

¶21

Digitally signed by SUSHIL KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.11.15 17:38:15 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Javed Ahmed v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Javed Ahmed 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

Akshay Krishna Vs Mukti Jaiswal and Another

Vinay Harijan Vs State of U.P.

Lalit Vs State of U.P.

Sharik Malik Vs State of U.P.

Ragghupal Vs State of U.P.

Om Prakash Pal Vs State of U.P.