Allowed

Santosh Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Allahabad HC22 May 2024/3478/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application under NDPS Act for recovery of morphine from a motorcycle; court noted non-compliance with mandatory sections and parity with bailed co-accused pillion riders and allowed bail.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties with conditions regarding trial attendance and cooperation.

Santosh Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy… — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:38999

¶2

Court No. - 11

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3478 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko.

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Vineet Kumar Chaurasia,Alok Kumar Singh

¶6

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶7

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.

¶9

As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant is in jail since 17.11.2023 in Case Crime No.474 of 2023, under Sections 8/21C, 29, 60 (3) of N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station - Jaidpur, District - Barabanki.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in the case as he has not committed any offence as alleged. As per the prosecution story so narrated in the FIR, 350 gram morphine has been recovered from the cavity of one Motorcycle No.UP 41 Y 3539, which was being driven by the applicant and Arjun Yadav and Hasnain were pillion riders. Learned counsel has further submitted that mandatory compliance of Sections 50, 52, 55 & 57 of the N.D.P.S. Act has not been adhered to. Further, the applicant has not been apprised his right to be searched before the Gazetted Officer. The item in question has not been packed and sealed in the presence of independent eye witness. Proper sample has not been taken. Not only the above, mandatory compliance of Sections 100 & 165 Cr.P.C. has not been done. The present applicant is having no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that two co-accused persons, namely, Arjun Yadav and Hasnain, who were the pillion riders, have been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 03.05.2024 & 08.05.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Applications No.15199 of 2023 & 14712 of 2023 respectively, therefore, the present applicant may also be enlarged on bail on the basis of principles of parity. Further, the applicant undertakes that if he is released on bail, he shall not

¶12

misuse the liberty of bail and he shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order and shall cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. has, however, opposed the prayer for bail but he could not dispute the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the applicant.

¶14

Without entering into merits of the issue; considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties; contents and allegations of the FIR; the fact that mandatory compliance of Sections 50, 52, 55 & 57 of the N.D.P.S. Act has not been adhered to; the applicant has not been apprised his right to be searched before the Gazetted Officer; the item in question has not been packed and sealed in the presence of independent eye witness; proper sample has not been taken; mandatory compliance of Sections 100 & 165 Cr.P.C. has also not been done; the applicant is having no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever; two co-accused persons, namely, Arjun Yadav and Hasnain, who were the pillion riders, have been granted bail by this Court and undertaking of the applicant that he shall cooperate in the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of bail, I find it appropriate to release the applicant on bail.

¶15

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶16

Let applicant- Santosh Kumar be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶17

(i) 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. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶18

(ii) The applicant 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.

¶19

(iii) 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, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with

¶20

law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶21

(iv) 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. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶22

(v) The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court.

¶23

[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]

¶24

Order Date :- 22.5.2024 RBS/-

¶25

Digitally signed by :- RAM BIR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Santosh Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ankush Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrett. Lko. and 3 Others

Alam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home. Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko

Anurag Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru.Secy. Home Lucknow

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

Shakeel Quraishi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Sunil Rastogi @ Sani @ Sonu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko