Allowed

Aariz v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC16 Jan 2023BAIL/56016/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court allowed bail application of applicant accused under Sections 8/22 of NDPS Act. Application was allowed on grounds of plantation of drugs, absence of independent witness, infringement of statutory provisions during recovery, and lack of criminal history bearing relevance.

What did the court decide?

Grant of bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below.

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

¶1

Court No. - 74

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 56016 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Aariz Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Md. Nuruddin Khan,Md Zakir Husain 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.240 of 2022 at Police Station-Shahganj, District-Jaunpur under Sections 8/22 of NDPS Act. The applicant is in jail since 08.09.2022.

¶6

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by the learned trial court on 21.11.2022.

¶7

The following arguments made by Shri Mohd. Nuruddin Khan, 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). 55 gram Alprazolam 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 quantity of the prohibited substance is exaggerated as inaccurate instruments have been used for weighment. The recovered quantity is less than the notified commercial quantity under the NDPS Act.

¶11

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

¶12

(5). The applicant has explained the criminal history. The applicant has been falsely nominated in the said cases only to show the proficiency of the police investigators. The said cases do not have any bearing on the instant bail application.

¶13

(6). 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 his influencing witnesses, tampering with the evidence or reoffending.

¶14

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

¶15

Let the applicant- Aariz 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:-

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

Order Date :- 16.1.2023 Dhananjai

¶19

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

Aariz v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aariz 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

Chhotak @ Qayum Vs State of U.P.

Dhananjay Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Vikas Vs State of U.P.

Preeti Devi Vs State of U.P.

Pradeep Singh @ Vijay Bahadur Vs State of U.P.

Aman Vs State of U.P.