The Allahabad High Court allowed a bail application for an accused in a narcotics case. Granting bail was based on a defect in the non-following of Section 52-A sampling mandates and the applicant's lack of criminal history.
Released on personal bonds and two sureties of Rs.35,000 each.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:39125
Court No. - 12
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1912 of 2024
Applicant :- Guru Prasad Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow Counsel for Applicant :- Rama Kant Giri,Ashok Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
2 . In terms of the FIR, allegedly on the basis of a search carried out from three persons, 290 grams Heroin was recovered.
3 . In the light of the said, the submission of the counsel for the applicant is that the co-accused was enlarged on bail vide order dated 23.01.2024. It is further argued that the recovery is not in the presence of any independent witnesses and the mandate of Section 52A of the NDPS Act has not been followed. He places reliance on the judgment in the case of Mohd Muslim @ Hussain vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in 2023 Live Law (SC) 260 and in the case of Yusuf @ Asif Vs. State : Criminal Appeal No.3191 of 2023 arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No.3010 of 202 . He lastly argued that the applicant has no criminal history and is in custody since 10.12.2023 and the trial has not even started.
4. Learned A.G.A. opposed the bail prayer, however, he does not dispute the fact that the applicant has no criminal history.
5. Considering the submissions made at the Bar, prima facie , on a conjoint reading of law as
explained in the case of Mohd Muslim @ Hussain vs. State (Supra) and the effect of nonfollowing the mandate of section 52-A of the NDPS Act as explained in the case of Yusuf @ Asif Vs. State (Supra), prima facie, in the present case, there is a defect in so far as sampling process is concerned, on that basis coupled with the fact that the applicant has no criminal history and there is nothing on record to demonstrate that the applicant if enlarged on bail, would in any way adversely affect the trial and without expressing any opinion on merit, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .
6. Let the applicant Guru Prasad be released on bail in FIR/ Case Crime No. 736 of 2023, under Section 8/21 NDPS Act, Police Station Gola, District Kheri, on his furnishing personal bonds and two reliable sureties of Rs.35,000/- each to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:
(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
(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 ofÏcer or tamper with the evidence.
Order Date :- 22.5.2024 Arun
Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted considering the defect in sampling process under Section 52-A of the NDPS Act and no criminal history.
Whether the applicant will adversely affect the trial if released on bail.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Mohd Muslim @ Hussain vs. State (NCT of Delhi)Referred¶8
Mohd Muslim @ Hussain vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in 2023 Live Law (SC) 260
Yusuf @ Asif Vs. StateReferred¶8
Yusuf @ Asif Vs. State : Criminal Appeal No.3191 of 2023 arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No.3010 of 202
Mohd Muslim @ Hussain vs. StateExplained¶10
Mohd Muslim @ Hussain vs. State (Supra)
Yusuf @ Asif Vs. StateExplained¶10
Yusuf @ Asif Vs. State (Supra)
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Guru Prasad
State Of U.P.
Pankaj Bhatia
Arun Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
3 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
