Allowed

Pradeep Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC23 Jul 2024/4609/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Misc. Bail Application under NDPS Act. Applicant alleged non-ownership of vehicle, lack of independent witnesses for recovery, and non-compliance with Section 52-A. Court held sole evidence as co-accused statement under Section 67 inadmissible prima facie.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail with personal bond and two sureties of Rs.20,000/- each under specified conditions.

Pradeep Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:49897

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4609 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Pradeep Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Shailendra Kumar Tiwari

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶7

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

¶8

2 . In terms of the FIR, it was alleged that on the basis of a search carried out from the Wagon R Car, allegedly Poppy straw weighing 51.8 KG was recovered from the said vehicle.

¶9

3 . The counsel for the applicant argues that the applicant is neither the owner nor the driver of the vehicle nor was present at the time of recovery and subsequently the applicant was apprehended without any basis. He thus argues that the applicant may be enlarged on bail. He further argues that the allegation against the applicant was that he had run away while the goods were apprehended and later on based upon the statement of the co-accused under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, he was arrested and linked with the offence in question.

¶10

4. In terms of the FIR, the recovery is not in the presence of any independent witnesses. The manner of drawing sample was not indicated in the FIR and the mandate of Section 52-A of the NDPS Act has also not been followed.

¶11

5. Considering the material on record, prima facie, the applicant was not apprehended with the

¶12

goods, no recovery was effected from the conscious possession of the applicant and the applicant was linked based upon of the co-accused under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, which is not admissible in evidence in view of the law as explained in the case of Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamilnadu : AIR 2020 SC 5592 . Considering the alleged recovery to be slightly higher to the commercial quantity, which is 50 KG in the case of Poppy straw coupled with the fact that the applicant was not apprehended with the goods and the only evidence against the applicant is the statement of the co-accused under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, the applicant who has no criminal history of an offence under NDPS Act and is in custody since 28.03.2024 in enlarged on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶13

6. Let the applicant Pradeep Kumar be released on bail in FIR/ Case Crime No. 1236 of 2023, under Sections 8/18/29/60 NDPS Act, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Barabanki, on his furnishing personal bonds and two reliable sureties of Rs.20,000/- each to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶14

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

¶15

(b) The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused or suspected of the commission; and

¶16

(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.

¶17

Order Date :- 23.7.2024 Arun

¶18

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

Pradeep Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep Kumar v. State of U.P. 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shivam Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Raju Vs State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. Home and 3 Others

Rahul Gautam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

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

Ashok Chaurasia @ Ashok Kumar Chaurasia Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Mohd.Azad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin.Secy. Home and 3 Others