Allowed

Amisha Bahelia v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC28 Jan 2023BAIL/54380/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court allowed a bail application in a case under the NDPS Act. The court held that the arguments advanced by the counsel regarding lack of independent witnesses, insufficient quantity, missing forensic report, and procedural violations entitle the applicant to bail without commenting on the merits.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail subject to personal bond, two sureties, non-tampering with evidence, and appearance before trial court.

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

¶1

Court No. - 74

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 54380 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Amisha Bahelia Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shailesh Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

By means of the the bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No.101 of 2022 at Police Station-GRP, District-Mirzapur under Sections 8/20 of NDPS Act. The applicant is in jail since 26.09.2022.

¶6

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by the learned trial court on 11.11.2022.

¶7

The following arguments made by Shri Shailesh Pandey, learned counsel on behalf of the applicant, which could not be satisfactorily refuted by Shri Markandey Singh, learned AGA from the record, entitle the applicant for grant of bail:

¶8

(1). The applicant is a lady. 17.43 Kg. Ganja was planted on the applicant to implicate him in this case to burnish the credentials of the police authorities.

¶9

(2). There is no independent witness to the recovery.

¶10

(3). The recovered quantity is less than the notified commercial quantity under the NDPS Act.

¶11

(4). No reliable forensic science laboratory report

¶12

drawn up in accordance with latest scientific protocol by experts which affirms that the seized substance is a prohibited drug has been produced.

¶13

(5). The search and seizure has been made in violation of the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act.

¶14

(6). The applicant does not have any criminal history apart from this case.

¶15

(7). The applicant is not a flight risk. The applicant being a law abiding citizen has always cooperated with the investigation and undertakes to cooperate with the court proceedings. There is no possibility of her influencing witnesses, tampering with the evidence or reoffending.

¶16

In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.

¶17

Let the applicant- Amisha Bahelia be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below. The following conditions be imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶18

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence or influence any witness during the trial.

¶19

(ii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶20

Order Date :- 28.1.2023 Dhananjai

¶21

Digitally signed by :- DHANANJAI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Amisha Bahelia v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amisha Bahelia 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Virendra Kumar Jatav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Islam Vs State of U.P.

Dharmveer Gupta Vs State of U.P.

Shivam Pandey Vs State of U.P.

Farukh Vs State of U.P.

Raja Dixit Vs State of U.P.