Allowed

Rahul v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC3 Feb 2023BAIL/58306/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An application for bail seeking release on bonds was filed under Section 22 of the NDPS Act. The High Court allowed the bail application, noting arguments regarding planted drugs and procedural improprieties, and framed conditions to ensure appearance and prevent witness tampering.

What did the court decide?

Applicant to be released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties subject to specific conditions.

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

¶1

Court No. - 74

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 58306 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Rahul Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Dharmendra Kumar Rajput Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

By means of the bail application, the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No.391 of 2022 at Police Station-Kotwali Hathras, District-Hathras under Section 22 of the NDPS Act. The applicant is in jail since 09.10.2022.

¶6

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by the learned trial court on 04.11.2022.

¶7

The following arguments made by Shri Dharmendra Kumar Rajput, learned counsel on behalf of the applicant, which could not be satisfactorily refuted by Shri Paritosh Kumar Malviya, learned A.G.A.-I for the State from the record, entitle the applicant for grant of bail:

¶8

(1). 620 gram Diazepam was planted on the applicant to implicate him in this case to burnish credentials of the police authorities.

¶9

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

¶10

(3). The quantity of the prohibited substance is

¶11

exaggerated as inaccurate instruments have been used for weighment. The recovered substance is in fact below the commercial quantity notified under the NDPS Act.

¶12

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

¶13

(5). No reliable forensic science laboratory report drawn up in accordance with latest scientific protocols by experts which affirms that the seized substance is a prohibited drug has been produced.

¶14

(6). The applicant does not have any criminal history apart from the above said cases.

¶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 his 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-Rahul be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number, on furnishing a

¶18

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:-

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

Order Date :- 3.2.2023 Ashish Tripathi

¶22

Digitally signed by :- ASHISH NAYAN TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rahul v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul 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

Sohail Khan Vs State of U.P.

Deepak Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Sabir Khan Vs State of U.P.

Neeru Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Aftab Alam Vs State of U.P.

Firoz @ Golu Vs State of U.P.