Allowed

Pannelal Yadav v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC25 Sept 2023BAIL/38788/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in an N.D.P.S. case was allowed. The court held the recovered quantity was below commercial limits, noting absence of independent witnesses, an F.S.L. report, and non-compliance with Section 50 N.D.P.S. Act, alongside the applicant's clean record. Bail was granted on personal and two sureties bond.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:184958

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38788 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Pannelal Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Chandra Prakash Misra,Prakash Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, 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. 387 of 2023, under Section 8/21 N.D.P.S. Act, Police StationKotwali Padrauna, District- Kushinagar during the pendency of trial.

¶8

Counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. False recovery of 50 gm. 'Smack' has been shown from the applicant. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. The alleged contraband is below the commercial quantity. The mandatory provisions of section 50 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 'Smack'. The applicant does not have any criminal history. The applicant is in jail since 9.5.2023. 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 heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this Court prima facie finds that the alleged contraband is below the commercial quantity. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. Further the applicant has no criminal antecedents. The applicant has presently remained confined for more than four months and 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 intimidate the witness, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶11

Let the applicant Pannelal Yadav , 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:

¶12

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

¶13

(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

¶14

(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.

¶15

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

¶16

Order Date :- 25.9.2023 S.S.

¶17

Digitally signed by :- SIDDHARTH SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Pannelal Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pannelal Yadav 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

Mohammad Ali Vs State of U.P.

Kamal @ Kalam Vs State of U.P.

Jaypal @ Jagpal Singh Vs State of U.P.

Tasleem Vs State of U.P.

Govinda Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mursleem Vs State of U.P.