Allowed

Manmohan @ Lalu v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC11 Jan 2023BAIL/56046/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment grants bail to the applicant in a narcotics possession case. The court observed potential flaws in recovery evidence, including false implications, lack of eyewitnesses, non-compliance with Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act, and absence of an F.S.L. report, ultimately allowing bail.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is to be released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of like amount.

Manmohan @ Lalu Vs State of U.P. — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 56046 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Manmohan @ Lalu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Kuamr Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶5

Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶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. 718 of 2022, under Section 08/21/22 N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station- Tilhar, District- Shahjahanpur during pendency of the trial.

¶7

It is submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. False recovery of Spas-Trancan Plus (Tramadol) has been shown from the joint possession of three persons including the applicant. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. The police has deliberately shown the quantity of the alleged narcotics substance marginally higher in order to add to the gravity of the offence. No accurate scientific instruments were used for weighment. The mandatory provisions contained in section 50 of 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. The criminal history of the applicant has been explained in para 17 of the affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 23.9.2022. In case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶8

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

¶9

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.

¶10

Let the applicant, Manmohan @ Lalu involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned on the following conditions that:

¶11

the applicant shall not temper with the prosecution evidence;

¶12

the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witness;

¶13

the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court.;

¶14

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶15

Order Date :- 11.1.2023 S.S.

¶16

Digitally signed by :- SIDDHARTH SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Manmohan @ Lalu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manmohan @ Lalu 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

Mohd. Shakir Vs State of U.P.

Prince Vs State of U.P.

Ravi @ Vicky Jaiswal Vs State of U.P.

Shokeen Vs State of U.P.

Rahul Vs State of U.P.

Rakesh Singh Vs State of U.P.