Allowed

Suresh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC1 Nov 2023BAIL/44759/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the Single Judge held that the applicant was entitled to bail because the trial court failed to follow Chapter V of the NDPS Act, specifically Section 52A regarding sampling. The court noted procedural lapses in recovery, including lack of independent witnesses and improper weighing.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Suresh released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:208652

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44759 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Suresh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Pathak Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶6

Learned A.G.A. for the State submits that the instructions have been received and he has no objection in case the bail application is decided on merits.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party.

¶8

The instant bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 297 of 2023, under Sections 21/22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, Police Station- Hathras Gate, District- Hathras during the pendency of trial.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. False recovery of 574 gram Diazepam powder has been shown from the applicant. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. The mandatory provisions of Sections 42, 50 and 51 of the N.D.P.S. Act have not been complied with. There is no F.S.L. report to establish that the substance recovered is 'Diazepam'. While weighing the recovered substance, the police has weighed it along with packing material. The police has deliberately shown the quantity of the alleged narcotics substance marginally higher in order to add gravity to the offence. No accurate scientific instruments were used for weighment. The applicant is in jail since 20.08.2023 having no criminal history and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶10

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

¶11

After hearing the rival contentions and after perusal of the

¶12

record, this Court prima facie finds that the mandate of Chapter V of the N.D.P.S. Act has not been followed. The sampling has not been done in the presence of the Magistrate which is required under Section 52A of the NDPS Act. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. Further, 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 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- Suresh, 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; and,

¶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 :- 1.11.2023 SKT/-

¶19

Digitally signed by :- SHIVA KANT TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Suresh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh 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

Deepak Vs State of U.P.

Chanchal Mishra Alias Ratnesh Vs State of U.P.

Shivendra Singh Vs State of U.P.

Intezar Vs State of U.P.

Faheem Vs State of U.P.

Faster Abhishek Kumar Vs State of U.P.