Allowed

Ravi Kumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC14 Sept 2023BAIL/33750/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. finding that the recovery of narcotics violated Chapter 5 of the NDPS Act and prescribed sampling rules, lacking independent witnesses and an F.S.L. report. With no show of tampering risk, the applicant was granted bail on personal and surety bonds.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each, subjected to conditions of attendance and non-interference with witnesses.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:177836

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33750 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Ravi Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kuldeep Johri Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶6

Case called out in the revised list. None appears on behalf of the applicant to press the instant application. Ms. Divya Ojha, learned A.G.A. for the State is present.

¶7

Ms. Divya Ojha, learned A.G.A. for the State submits that the instructions have been received and she has no objection in case the bail application is decided on merits.

¶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. 156 of 2023, under Section 420 I.P.C., under Sections 8/20/25/29/60 of N.D.P.S. Act and under Section 3/25 of Arms Act, Police Station- Bichwa, District- Mainpuri during the pendency of trial.

¶9

It has been asserted in the affidavit filed in support of the bail application that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. As per the first information report, 47 Kg. 400 gram Ganja (38 kg 400 gm in 36 closed packets and rest 9 kg open) has been recovered from the joint possession of two persons including the applicant. False recovery of one country made pistol and two live cartridges has also been shown from applicant. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. The mandatory provisions contained under Sections 41, 42, 43 and 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act have not been complied with. The procedure of sampling is in violation of the provision conferred under the N.D.P.S. Act. There is no F.S.L. report to establish that the packets contain Ganja. The applicant is in jail since 24.03.2023, having no criminal history. 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 heard counsel for the state and having perused the

¶12

record this Court prima facie finds that the mandate of Chapter 5 of the N.D.P.S. Act has not been followed. There is no independent witness to the recovery. The procedure of sampling adopted is in violation of the Rule 10 (1) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022. Further the applicant has no criminal antecedent and has remained confined for more than one and a half month 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 tamper with the evidence or delay the trial or intimidate the witness, without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶13

Let the applicant Ravi Kumar 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:

¶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 :- 14.9.2023 Sachin Mishra

¶19

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

Ravi Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi Kumar 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

Mohan Prakash Vs State of U.P.

Brahamanand Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Firasat @ Fasahat Khan @ Farsad @ Tahjeev Alam Vs State of U.P.

Gireesh Vs State of U.P.

Raja Salmani Vs State of U.P.

Aakash Vs State of U.P.