Allowed

Mohsin Raza v. State of Up. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC22 Feb 2024/1245/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted bail to the applicant in a case involving 15 grams of smack. The recovery violated Section 50 of the NDPS Act, the quantity was non-commercial, and antecedents were explained with existing bail in other cases.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail with personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions regarding attendance, non-repeat, and witness interference.

Mohsin Raza Vs State of Up. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:15936

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1245 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Mohsin Raza Opposite Party :- State Of Up. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd Fahim, Devendra Pratap, Shashank Shekhar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Ayush Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the record.

¶7

The accused-applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.119 of 2022 under section 8/21 NDPS Act, P.S. Naka District Lucknow.

¶8

In terms of the FIR, allegedly from the applicant, 15 grams of smack was recovered form the applicant.

¶9

The counsel for the applicant argues that the recovery is not in terms of the mandate of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. He further argues that the recovery is less than the commercial quantity and the criminal antecedents have been duly explained in the supplementary affidavit and in all the pending cases, the applicant is on bail.

¶10

Considering the fact that the recovery is less than the commercial quantity and prima-facie the mandate of Section 50 of the NDPS Act was not followed as the recovery was affected from in person of the applicant, a case for bail is made out. Thus the bail application is allowed.

¶11

Let the applicant Mohsin Raza be released on bail in aforesaid first information report number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶12

(a) The applicant shall execute a bond to undertake to attend the hearings; (b) The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused or suspected of the commission; and

¶13

(c) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶14

Order Date :- 22.2.2024 VNP/-

¶15

Digitally signed by :- VISHVANATH PRASAD SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mohsin Raza v. State of Up. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohsin Raza v. State of Up. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

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

Vishal Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Deptt. of Home, Lucknow

Dheeraj Pandey Vs State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Civil Secretariat, Lucknow

Virendra Kumar Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Secy. Home Sectt. Lko

Sadhna Bajpai Vs State of U.P., Thru. Prin. the Secy. Home Deptt., Civil Secrtt. Lko.

Salman Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

Zeeshan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.