Allowed

Akhilesh @ Bablu v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC12 Apr 2022BAIL/8097/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal bail application by an accused under NDS Act alleging false implication. Court granted bail subject to personal bond and two sureties, balancing seriousness of charge with Article 21 rights and precedent.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail with personal bond and two sureties in like amounts subject to conditions of attendance, non-tampering with witnesses, and no illegal activities.

Akhilesh @ Bablu Vs State of U.P. — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 90

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8097 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Akhilesh @ Bablu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rahul Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur),J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The accused- applicant, Akhilesh @ Bablu is involved in Case Crime No.14 of 2022, under Section 8/20 The Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985, Police Station Thariaon, District- Fatehpur.

¶7

It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. There is no independent witness of the alleged incident. The recovered amount of 'ganja' is 10kg, which is below the commercial quantity of 20kg. There is no criminal history to the applicant's credit. The applicant is languishing in jail since 13.01.2022 and in case he is enlarged on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail. Hence, bail has been prayed for.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail application but could not dispute the facts as mentioned above.

¶9

Having heard the submissions of learned counsel of both the parties, considering the seriousness of the charge and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment, and larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 2 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a case of bail.

¶10

Let the applicant, Akhilesh @ Bablu, who is involved in 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 subject to following conditions.

¶11

The applicant will attend and co-operate in the trial pending before the court concerned on the dates fixed after release.

¶12

He will not tamper with the witnesses.

¶13

He will not indulge himself in any illegal activities during the bail period.

¶14

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶15

It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.

¶16

In case of breach of of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶17

Order Date :- 12.4.2022 Aditya

¶18

Digitally signed by ADITYA KUSHWAHA Date: 2022.04.12 17:25:51 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Akhilesh @ Bablu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akhilesh @ Bablu 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Lakhan Vs State of U.P.

Rifakat Vs State of U.P.

Sameer Vs State of Up through Secretary Home

Om Prakash Jangid Vs State of U.P.

Vipin Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Sageer Vs State of U.P.