Allowed

Arjun v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC6 Jun 2022BAIL/5924/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application challenging the rejection from the Special Judge (NDPS Act). The court found merit in allegations that mandatory NDPS Act provisions were violated, the seized drug weight was unreliable, and no forensic report existed, ordering the applicant's release.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on personal bond and two sureties with conditions to not tamper with evidence or influence witnesses and to appear for trial.

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

¶1

Court No. - 43

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5924 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Arjun Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Amarendra Mani,Salil Krishna 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. 506 of 2020 at Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Etah under Section 8/22 N.D.P.S. Act. The applicant is in jail since 06.09.2020.

¶6

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by learned Special Judge (NDPS Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, Etah, on 18.06.2021.

¶7

Shri Amarendra Mani, learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. 550 gm. Diazepam powder was planted on the person of the applicant to frame him in the instant criminal case to show proficiency of police investigators. The weight of the recovered substance as stated in the FIR is unreliable as accurate scientific instruments were not used for weighment. The weight of the recovered substance is infact lesser than 500gm, which is the notified commercial quantity under the NDPS Act. No forensic science laboratory report has been submitted which confirms that the substance allegedly recovered is prohibited under the NDPS Act. There is no

¶8

independent witness to the alleged recovery. The mandatory provisions of Section 42 and Section 50 of the NDPS Act have been violated. Learned counsel for the applicant has explained the criminal history of the applicant and contends that the same has no bearing on the instant case.

¶9

Shri I.P. Srivastava, learned A.G.A for the State could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. Learned AGA does not contest the criminal history of the applicant as disclosed in the bail application.

¶10

I see merit in the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant and accordingly hold that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶11

In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.

¶12

Let the applicant- Arjun be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below. The following conditions be imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶13

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

¶14

(ii) The applicant will not influence any witness.

¶15

(iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on

¶16

the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶17

(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.

¶18

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶19

Order Date :- 6.6.2022 Pravin

¶20

Digitally signed by PRAVIN VERMA Date: 2022.06.07 10:27:17 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Arjun v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arjun 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

Munna Vs State of U.P.

Vijay Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Ashwani Joshi Vs State of U.P.

Aman Tauseef Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pushpendra Vs State of U.P.

Raj Kumar Jain Vs State of U.P.