Allowed

Vinay Pratap Bhodoriya v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC5 Apr 2023BAIL/4527/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal bail application under the N.D.P.S. Act, the High Court granted bail to the applicant who alleged false implication and mandatory non-compliance of Section 50. The court observed that the question of voluntariness of consent is for the trial and allowed bail subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties subject to specific appearance conditions including those for framing of charge and recording of statement.

Vinay Pratap Bhodoriya Vs State of U.P. — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 86

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4527 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Vinay Pratap Bhodoriya Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sheshadri Trivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive, on the basis of false and planted recovery of 3 kg charas has been recovered from joint possession of the coaccused and applicant and there is no public witness of the alleged recovery. It is further contended that mandatory provision of Section 50 of N.D.P.S Act has not been complied with. At the stage of consideration of bail it cannot be decided whether offer given to the applicant and his consent obtained was voluntary. These are the questions of fact which can be determined only during trial and not at the present stage.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant drawn the attention of this Court towards the dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in re: Sate of Rajasthan vs. Parmanand & Anr. reported in 2014 LawSuit (SC) 141. Contents of para 14 of the judgment are being reproduced herein below:-

¶8

"Most of the offences under the NDPS Act carry stringent punishment and , therefore, the prescribed procedure has to be meticulously followed. These are minimum safeguards available to an accused against the possibility of false involvement. The communication this right has to be clear, unambiguous and individual. The accused must be made aware of the existence of such a right. This right would be of little significance if the beneficiary thereof is not able to exercise it for want of knowledge about its existence. A joint communication of the right may not be clear or unequivocal. It may create confusion. It may result in diluting the right."

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that as opined above by the Apex Court in case of prima facie noncompliance of mandatory provision of Section 50 and 50(1) of

¶10

N.D.P.S. Act, the accused is entitled to be released on bail within the meaning of Section 37 of N.D.P.S. Act. The applicant has criminal history of one case and in which he has already been released on bail by this Court and the order is annexed as Annexure no. 4 to the affidavit filed in support of the bail application. It is also submitted that the applicant is in jail since 30.03.2022 and he undertakes that he will not misuse liberty, if granted.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pretrial stage who is involved in supplying contraband, therefore, the applicant does not deserve any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activity. The "reasonable grounds" mentioned in Section 37(1) (b)(ii) of NDPS Act mean something more than prima facie ground. It implies substantial probable causes for believing that accused is not guilty of the offence charged and points to existence of such facts and circumstances which are sufficient to hold that accused is not guilty.

¶12

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of offence, evidence, complicity of accused and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and the law laid down by the Apex Court in Sate of Rajasthan vs. Parmanand & Anr. reported in 2014 LawSuit (SC) 141 the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶13

Let the applicant Vinay Pratap Bhodoriya involved in Case Crime No. 141 of 2022, under Section 8/20 of N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station Bhogaon, District Mainpuri, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following condition:-

¶14

(i) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code;

¶15

(ii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶16

(iii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶17

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶18

Order Date :- 5.4.2023

¶19

Bhanu

¶20

Digitally signed by :- BHANU PRATAP KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vinay Pratap Bhodoriya v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinay Pratap Bhodoriya 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raju Kashyap Vs State of U.P.

Rinku Vs State of U.P.

Rajkumar Urf Tarjan Vs State of U.P.

Rihan @ Tata Vs State of U.P.

Azam Vs State of U.P.

Reshma @ Nanhi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others