Allowed

Mohd. Sadik Ansari v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC14 Jul 2023/2535/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a bail application under the NDPS Act, holding that the statutory mandatory provision of Section 50 regarding the right to an independent witness was violated during the raid, establishing reasonable doubt and justifying release on bail.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail with a personal bond and two reliable sureties.

Mohd. Sadik Ansari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:46129

¶2

Court No. - 11

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2535 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Mohd. Sadik Ansari Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Singh,Anil Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the record.

¶7

The accused-applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.681 of 2022 under section 8/21 NDPS Act, P.S.Ram Sanehi Ghat, District Barabanki.

¶8

The FIR was lodged that two persons were apprehended and smack weighing 305 grams was recovered, as against the applicant, the recovery of 262 grams of smack was alleged to be recovered and from the other co-accused, 43 grams of smack was allegedly recovered.

¶9

The counsel for the applicant argues that from the perusal of the first information report, it is clear that there is no compliance of section 50 of the NDPS Act. He also argues that the mandatory provisions enumerated in the N.D.P.S. Act for search and seizure have not been followed in strict sense. There is no independent witness of the alleged offence/recovery. He further argues that the co-accused Chandan Sonkar has been enlarged on bail mainly on the ground that the recovery was less than the commercial quantity.

¶10

In sum and substance, the argument of the counsel for the applicant is that the recovery alleged from the applicant is slightly above the commercial quantity, however if the weight of the packet in which the alleged recoveries were effected is taken into consideration, the recovery would be less than the commercial quantity. He further argues that in any case, the mandatory provisions of section 50 of the NDPS Act has to be followed. He lastly argues that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and is in custody since 25.12.2022.

¶11

Learned AGA opposed the bail application by arguing that the applicant has been apprehended with the drugs and the offence committed is very serious in nature. He argues that the recovery is more than the commercial quantity and the

¶12

provisions of the NDPS Act has been complied with during the raid but he could not contradicted the aforesaid fact.

¶13

Considering the submissions made at the bar, prima facie there is clear violation of mandate of section 50 of the NDPS Act as admittedly the recovery was effected from the person and the recovery has not been effected in the presence of a gazetted officer, thus, there are reasons to believe that the applicant may not have committed the offence in question coupled with the fact that as the applicant does not have any criminal antecedents, there is no reason for this court to believe that the applicant if enlarged on bail will indulged in a similar offence, the applicant is in custody since 25.12.2022, as such, he is entitled for the bail. The application is allowed.

¶14

Let the applicant Mohd. Sadik Ansari be released on bail in aforesaid first information report number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below concerned with the following conditions:

¶15

(a) The applicant shall execute a bond to undertake to attend the hearings;

¶16

(b) The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused or suspected of the commission; and

¶17

(c) 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 or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶18

Order Date :- 14.7.2023 VNP/-

¶19

Digitally signed by :- VISHVANATH PRASAD SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mohd. Sadik Ansari v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Sadik Ansari v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

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

Suraj @ Arif Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and 3 Others

Santosh Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Dept. Lko.

Bodhraj Alias Bojhey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and 3 Others

Ranjeet Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Akash Chaudhary Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Shivakant Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Others