Allowed

Mohan v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC13 Jan 2023BAIL/54787/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application, the Court, after noting that mandatory provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act were not strictly complied with and co-accused were released without commenting on merits, allowed bail with conditions to appear and not tamper with evidence or pressurize witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Released on personal bond and two sureties with conditions to appear, not tamper evidence, and not pressurize witnesses.

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

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 54787 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Mohan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mohammad Faisal Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vikas Sahai, learned AGA for the State-opposite party.

¶6

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. 89 of 2022, under Sections 8/21 of N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station- Phugana, District- Muzaffar Nagar during the pendency of trial.

¶7

It is submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. No recovery, as alleged in the first information report, was made from the applicant. There is no independent witness to the recovery. It is next contended that the mandatory provisions of Section 50 N.D.P.S. Act have not been complied with. There is no F.S.L. report to establish that the substance recovered is prohibited. It is further contended that the coaccused, Arpit Malik and Uvesh, who were arrested along with the applicant, have been granted by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 55775 of 2022 and 53274 of 2022 vide orders dated 07.12.2022 and 05.12.2022. The applicant has no criminal history to his credit. The applicant is in jail since 30.09.2022. In case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶8

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

¶9

Perused the material on record.

¶10

Having regard to the submissions made but without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶11

Let the applicant- Mohan involved in aforesaid case 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 :- 13.1.2023 Sachin Mishra

¶17

Digitally signed by :- SACHIN MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mohan v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohan 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

Sandeep Vs State of U.P.

Santosh Kumar Tiwari Vs State of U.P.

Jatan Saini Vs State of U.P.

Narayan and Another Vs State of U.P.and 3 Others

Ashish Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P.

Nazim Vs State of U.P.