Allowed

Amit Chand Yadav v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko.

Allahabad HC20 Nov 2024/3071/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court at Lucknow Bench allowed a bail application filed by Amit Chand Yadav accused under the NDPS Act concerning the recovery of ganja. The court considered that co-accused were on bail and allowed bail subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail conditioned to execute personal bond and two sureties, and adhere to specific attendance and non-interference terms during trial.

Amit Chand Yadav Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:76738

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3071 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Amit Chand Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko.

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Srivastava,Awadhesh Yadav,Girish Kumar Pandey,Sher Bahadur Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the record.

¶8

The accused-applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.396 of 2023 under section 8/20 NDPS Act, 1985, P.S. Baskhari, District Ambedkar Nagar.

¶9

As per prosecution case allegedly 25.500 kg ganja was recovered from possession of the applicant and other coaccused persons, who were going to sell it by a car.

¶10

Contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant was allegedly driving the car wherein the said contraband substance, i.e., ganja is said to have been recovered, though the applicant had no knowledge that some contraband substance is kept inside the vehicle. He also submits that there is no conscious possession and further added that the coaccused persons, namely, Pushpa Devi and Tej Bahadur Yadav have been enlarged on bail vide orders dated 10.04.2024 and 18.07.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 2675 of 2024 and 2688 of 2024 respectively. He also submits that the applicant has two cases criminal history, which has been explained in the affidavit filed in support of the application for bail and he is languishing in jail since 23.12.2023. He also submits that chargesheet in the present case has been filed. He further submitted that the applicant undertakes that in case he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶11

Per contra, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that the contraband substance of above the commercial quantity has been recovered from the car, which the applicant was driving, however, he could not dispute the fact stated by learned counsel for the applicant, especially the co-accused have been granted

¶12

the liberty of bail on the same set of facts.

¶13

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of record it transpires that coaccused have already been enlarged on bail; the recovered contraband substance is slightly above the commercial quantity and two cases' criminal history against the applicant has been explained, and the fact that chargesheet has been filed and that applicant undertakes that in case he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings, he is entitled for the bail. Thus, the bail application is allowed .

¶14

Let the applicant Amit Chand Yadav S/o Late Sriram Yadav 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:

¶15

(1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial;

¶16

(2) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. He shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code;

¶17

(3) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.; and

¶18

(4) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶19

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶20

It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly

¶21

confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case.

¶22

( Shree Prakash Singh, J. )

¶23

Order Date :- 20.11.2024 A.Nigam

¶24

Digitally signed by :- ANUJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Amit Chand Yadav v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Chand Yadav v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Satya Prakash Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Rajnish Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and Another

Complainant of Case Crime No. 236/2021 Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko.

Ajay Gautam @ Ajay vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Affairs and Another

Sharif Ahmad and 20 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Firoz vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.