Allowed

Lauhar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC7 Aug 2023BAIL/31237/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court granted bail to the applicant Lauhar in an N.D.P.S. Act matter. The court accepted arguments regarding false implication, lack of independent witness for recovery, and non-compliance of mandatory provisions, noting the applicant had been in custody for two months with no hope of early conclusion to trial.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicant Lauhar on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions to appear, not tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses.

Lauhar Vs State of U.P. — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:158695

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31237 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Lauhar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Surendra Mohan Mishra,Vishveshwar Mani Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed by counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State-opposite party and perused the record.

¶8

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. 63 of 2023, under Sections 8/21/23 of N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station- Shivnagar Didai, District- Siddharth Nagar during the pendency of trial.

¶9

Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. False recovery of 28.80 gm . Alprazolam Tablets has been shown from the applicant. There is no independent witness to the recovery. The alleged contraband is below the commercial quantity. The mandatory provisions of N.D.P.S. Act have not been complied with. There is no F.S.L. report to establish that the substance recovered is Alprazolam. The criminal history of the applicant has been explained in para no. 2 of the supplementary affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 05.06.2023. In case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶10

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

¶11

Having regard to the submissions made above and the fact that the applicant has remained confined for more than two months, and after submission of the charge-sheet, there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, more so when no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either temper with the evidence or delay the trial or intimidate the witness, without commenting on the merits of the

¶12

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

¶13

Let the applicant- Lauhar, involved in aforesaid case 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:

¶14

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

¶15

(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

¶16

(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.

¶17

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

¶18

Order Date :- 7.8.2023 Sachin Mishra

¶19

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

Lauhar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lauhar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chhote Lal Vs State of U.P.

Chandan Chauhan Alias Amarjeet Chauhan Vs State of U.P.

Sachin Singh Vs State of U.P.

Vijay @ Mulayam Vs State of U.P.

Narendra Singh @ Deepa Vs State of U.P.

Vishal Vs State of U.P.