Single judge of Allahabad High Court allowed bail application filed by Vivek Yadav accused under NDPS Act. Court held applicant merited bail without commenting on case merits and imposed standard conditions.
Applicant released on bail by furnishing personal bond and two sureties in the like amount.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 68
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 830 of 2022
Applicant :- Vivek Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ranjit Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.
By means of this bail application, the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 154 of 2019 at Police Station GRP Tundla District Firozabad under Sections 21/22 of NDPS Act. The applicant is in jail since 13.11.2019.
Shri Ranjit Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. The non-bailable warrants were not issued against the applicant but against another co-accused person. The pleadings taken in this regard have not been refuted in the counter affidavit. Correct facts were not referred to this Court in the earlier bail applications.
Shri Ranjit Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant further contends that 120 gm. Alprazolam 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 F.I.R. is unreliable as accurate scientific instruments were not used for weighment. The weight of the recovered substance is infact much less than 100
gm. 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 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 being from poor economic strata and having low social station the applicant has become a convenient scapegoat for the police authorities who nominated him in the aforesaid false cases to burnish their professional credentials. The F.I.R. under the NDPS Act was vague, inasmuch as, the nature and details of the narcotics substance in that case have not been disclosed. The applicant never misused the liberty of bail. The said cases do not relate to any heinous crime and have no bearing on the instant case. The applicant is not a flight risk. Lastly it is submitted by the learned counsel for applicant that the applicant shall not abscond, and will cooperate in the criminal law proceedings. The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence nor influence the witnesses in any manner.
Shri Nafees Ahmad, learned AGA 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.
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.
In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant- Vivek Yadav 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:-
(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
(ii) The applicant will not influence any witness.
(iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
(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.
In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.
Order Date :- 6.4.2022 Dhananjai
Digitally signed by DHANANJAI Date: 2022.04.07 10:49:04 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail without prejudice to the merits of the case.
Whether the mandatory provisions of Section 42 and Section 50 of the NDPS Act were violated in the recovery of narcotics.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Vivek Yadav
Ajay Bhanot
Dhananjai
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
