Allowed

Sonu @ Sonveer v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC15 Sept 2023BAIL/12661/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal bail application arising from a case under the N.D.P.S. Act, the court observed that mandatory Section 50 provisions regarding public witnesses were not followed by the police. Relying on Supreme Court authority, the court allowed the applicant's bail prayer despite not commenting on the merits of the case evidence.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by executing a personal bond and two sureties.

Sonu @ Sonveer Vs State of U.P. — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:178809

¶2

Court No. - 75

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12661 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Sonu @ Sonveer Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Neha Tripathi,Abhilasha Singh,Ashutosh Yadav,Shyam Lal,Vinay Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Sharma,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Ashutosh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Bhupendra Pal Singh, learned AGA for the State-opposite party and perused the record.

¶7

The instant bail application, under Section 439 Cr.P.C., has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 109 of 2023, under Section 21/22 N.D.P.S. Act, Police StationHighway, District- Mathura during the pendency of trial.

¶8

Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that no public witness has been taken by the police before the alleged recovery. The mandatory provision of Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act has not been complied with and except the confessional statement of the applicant, there is no iota of evidence. Sample had been prepared before the Magistrate or Gazetted Officer. In para 16 of the application, it has been mentioned that on account of the enmity with the police personnel, police has been falsely implicated in this case. Learned Counsel for the applicant has relied on the decision of the Apex Court case titled Arif Khan @ Agha Khan v. State of Uttarakhand, 2018 LawSuit(SC) 420 , in which it has been laid down by the Apex Court that even if the accused gives his consent in writing to be searched by the police officials, it would be mandatory to make a personal search before the Gazetted Officer/Magistrate. There is no criminal history against the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 02.02.2023. In case, he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶9

Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶10

Having regard to the submissions made but without commenting

¶11

on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶12

Let the applicant Sonu @ Sonveer, involved in the aforesaid case 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 the conditions that he:

¶13

(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;

¶14

(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

¶15

(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.

¶16

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

¶17

Order Date :- 15.9.2023 A.N. Mishra

¶18

Digitally signed by :- AMARNATH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sonu @ Sonveer v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonu @ Sonveer 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ravikant Kushwaha Vs State of U.P.

Sanjeev Alias Guddu Vs State of U.P.

Kallu Quaraishi Vs State of U.P.

Pintu Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sachin Vs State of U.P.

Manish Kumar Seth Vs State of U.P.