Allowed

Tej Pal v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC7 Jun 2022BAIL/9889/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under the NDPS Act, the High Court of Allahabad allowed the applicant's bail, finding merit in submissions that recovery was made from others and the co-accused statement was unreliable, granting parity with a co-accused already on bail.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed by personal bond and two sureties of like amount. Conditions: no tampering, no witness influence, regular appearance.

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

¶1

Court No. - 43

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9889 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Tej Pal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Birendra Singh 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. 350 of 2021 at Police Station- Dholna, District-Kasganj under Sections 8/20(b)(ii) 25, 29, 27(a), 43 of NDPS Act. The applicant is in jail since 11.10.2021.

¶6

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/FTC, Kasganj, on 15.01.2022.

¶7

Shri Birendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. The applicant was not named in the F.I.R. No recovery of narcotics substance was made from the applicant. The recovery was made from the principal offenders Hemant and Subhash. The applicant was nominated in a statement made by a co-accused Satyaveer Singh before the police authorities. The said statement insofar as it implicates the applicant is unreliable. Prosecution evidence does not connect the applicant with the offence.

¶8

The said co-accused Satyaveer Singh who was named

¶9

in the F.I.R, has been enlarged on bail by this Court by order dated 19.04.2022 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 7235 of 2022. The case of the applicant stands on a better footing than that of the aforesaid coaccused. However, learned counsel for the applicant seeks parity in relief granted to the aforesaid coaccused.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant does not have any criminal history apart from this case.

¶11

Shri Anupam Anand, learned brief holder for the State could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. Learned AGA does not dispute the fact that the applicant does not have any criminal history apart from this case.

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

Let the applicant- Tej Pal 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 concerned subject to following conditions.

¶15

The applicant will not tamper with the evidence

¶16

during the trial.

¶17

The applicant will not influence any witness.

¶18

The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶19

The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any 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.

¶20

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

¶21

Order Date :- 7.6.2022 Dhananjai

¶22

Digitally signed by DHANANJAI Date: 2022.06.08 17:37:58 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Tej Pal v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tej Pal 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aman Tauseef Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pushpendra Vs State of U.P.

Arjun Vs State of U.P.

Momin Vs State of U.P.

Ishu Deep Singh Vs State of U.P.

Saurabh Gupta Vs State of U.P.