Allowed

Masuk v. the State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin.Secy.Deptt. of Home

Allahabad HC13 Aug 2024/2994/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court allowed bail to three applicants accused under NDPS Act. Bail granted due to infirmities in recovery procedure violating Section 50 and 52-A of NDPS Act, lack of independent witness, and failure to corroborate FSL report with recovery made from applicant pockets, making prima facie indictment unestablished.

What did the court decide?

Applicants released on bail by furnishing personal bonds and two sureties of like amount each with conditions to attend hearings and not tamper with evidence.

Masuk Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin.Secy.Deptt. of… — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:55789

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2994 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Masuk Opposite Party :- The State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin.Secy.Deptt. Of Home Counsel for Applicant :- Firoz Ahmad Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

AND

¶6

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4200 of 2024

¶7

Applicant :- Prakash Rawat Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Saran Awasthi,Abhishek Awasthi,Pratyush Rawat,Rajan Mishra,Soumya Dixit Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶8

AND

¶9

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8390 of 2024

¶10

Applicant :- Haseeb Baba Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Dhirendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶11

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶12

1 . Heard learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶13

2 . The present bail application has been filed seeking enlargement on bail in FIR No.51 of 2024, under Sections 8/21 of NDPS Act, Police Station Subeha, District Barabanki.

¶14

3. In terms of the FIR, it was alleged that on the basis of information received, a search was carried out and the applicants, who are three in number, were apprehended and from their pockets allegedly 550 grams, 500 grams and 350 grams of brown powder was recovered, which was said to be morphine and on the basis of said recovery, all the accused was

¶15

apprehended.

¶16

4 . The Counsel for the applicant argues that the manner of sampling has not been indicated in the recovery memo. The recovery was not in the presence of independent witness and the mandate of Section 50 of the NDPS Act was also not followed particularly when the recovery was effect from the pocket of the applicants. It is lastly argues that the applicants have no criminal history under NDPS Act and the other criminal history has been duly explained, as such, the applicants are entitled for bail.

¶17

5 . Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the bail prayer by arguing that the recovery was more than the commercial quantity, which is 250 grams in the case of morphine, as such, as per the mandate of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the bail application deserves to be rejected. Learned A.G.A. does not dispute that there are no criminal history under NDPS Act agaisnt the applicants. He further argues that as per the FSL report, the sample sent was found to be heroin.

¶18

6 . In rejoinder, the Counsel for the applicant argues that even in terms of the FLS, the sample size was 4.983 grams and there is no material to corroborate the sample with the alleged recovery as effected from the applicants.

¶19

7 . Considering the submissions made at the bar and the scope of Section 37 of the NDPS Act as explained in the case of Mohd Muslim @ Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi); 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 260 and the effect of not following the mandate of Section 52-A of NDPS Act as explained in the case of Yusuf alias Asif vs State; AIR 2023 SC 5041 ; the manner in which sampling was drawn; there is no independent witness, prima facie, there is no material to corroborate the FSL sample with the recovery effect from the applicants and considering these infirmities, prima facie, a view can be formed that the prosecution may not be able to establish the offence against the applicant, as such, the applicants who have no criminal antecedents under NDPS Act and are in custody since 20.02.2023 and 20.02.2024 are entitled to be released on bail. Accordingly, the bail applications are allowed .

¶20

8. Let the applicants, namely, Masuk, Prakash Rawat and Haseeb Baba be released on bail in the aforesaid first information report number on their furnishing personal bonds and two reliable sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶21

(a) The applicants shall execute a bond to undertake to attend the hearings;

¶22

(b) The applicants shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which they are accused or suspected of the commission; and

¶23

(c) The applicants 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.

¶24

Order Date :- 13.8.2024 akverma

¶25

Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Masuk v. the State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin.Secy.Deptt. of Home

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Masuk v. the State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin.Secy.Deptt. of Home

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Satya Prakash Maurya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Anil Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Rohit Sharma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home), Lko.

Mohan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Bambu @ Harish vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Kuldeep vs State of U.P., Thru. the Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Govt. Lko.