Allowed

Prinshu @ Narendra Bahadur @ Ranu v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC8 Nov 2023BAIL/45096/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail application was filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. challenging offences under the NDPS Act. The High Court allowed bail noting lack of independent witnesses for recovery, non-compliance with mandatory NDPS procedures, and length of imprisonment.

What did the court decide?

Releasing the applicant on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions of appearance and non-interference with witnesses.

Prinshu @ Narendra Bahadur @ Ranu Vs State of U.P. — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:214754

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45096 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Prinshu @ Narendra Bahadur @ Ranu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vishnu Kant Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶6

Sri Anupam Anand, learned Brief Holder 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

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

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Brief Holder for the State-opposite party.

¶9

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. 171 of 2023, under Sections 8 and 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station Sirsa Kalar, District Jalaun during the pendency of trial.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. False recovery of 2.400 kg. Ganja has been shown from the applicant. There is no independent witness to the recovery. The mandatory provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act have not been complied with. There is no FSL report to establish that the substance recovered is Ganja. The recovered contraband is below the commercial quantity. The criminal history of the applicant has been explained in Paragraph4 of the supplementary affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 14.08.2023 and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶11

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

¶12

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, this Court prima facie finds that there is no independent witness to the alleged recovery and the alleged contraband is below commercial quantity. Moreover, 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, and 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, therefore, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶13

Let the applicant- Prinshu @ Narendra Bahadur @ Ranu, involved in the aforesaid case, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of 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 :- 8.11.2023 SKT/-

¶19

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

Prinshu @ Narendra Bahadur @ Ranu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prinshu @ Narendra Bahadur @ Ranu 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

Neeraj Vs State of U.P.

Suresh Yadav Vs Narcotics Control Bureau Though Secretaty (Home)Government of U.P. at Lucknow

Intzar Vs State of U.P.

Mahendra Paswan Vs State of U.P.

Vijay Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P.

Laxman Bind Vs State of U.P.