Allowed

Lalit Bajpai @ Rahul v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow

Allahabad HC10 Jul 2024/5293/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court allowed bail to the applicant accused of possessing Smack under NDPS Act. Release granted due to non-compliance with warning mandates (Section 50) and inventory procedures (Section 52-A), lack of independent witnesses, and recovery being below commercial quantity.

What did the court decide?

Applicant enlarged on bail in FIR/ Case Crime No. 247 of 2022 by furnishing personal bond and two sureties of Rs. 20,000 each.

Lalit Bajpai @ Rahul Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:47007

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5293 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Lalit Bajpai @ Rahul Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow Counsel for Applicant :- Smriti Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

1. Counter afÏdavit filed today by learned AGA is taken on record.

¶7

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

¶8

3 . In terms of the FIR, it was alleged that on the basis of an information received, search was carried out and from the pocket of the applicant allegedly 180 grams Smack was recovered.

¶9

4 . The counsel for the applicant argues that as the recovery was effected from the pocket, the mandate of Section 50 of the NDPS Act was not followed. The mandate of Section 52-A of the NDPS Act was also not followed and there are no independent witnesses to the search as also the recovery is less than the commercial quantity. The applicant has no criminal history of an offence under NDPS Act.

¶10

5. Learned A.G.A. opposed the bail prayer.

¶11

6. Considering the fact that the recovery is less than the commercial quantity, there are no independent witnesses to the search, the mandate of Sections 50 & 52-A of the NDPS Act have not been followed, the applicant who is in custody since 22.08.2022 is enlarged on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶12

7. Let the applicant Lalit Bajpai @ Rahul be released on bail in FIR/ Case Crime No. 247 of 2022, under Sections 21/22 NDPS Act, Police Station Achalganj, District Unnao, 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:

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

(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.

¶16

Order Date :- 10.7.2024 Arun

¶17

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

Lalit Bajpai @ Rahul v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lalit Bajpai @ Rahul v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow

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

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

Babali @ Balvinder Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Chandrabhan Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and 3 Others

Gama Tiwari Alias Atma Prakash Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. of Lko.

Amrendra Kumar Rawat Alias Arvind Kumar Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko.

Prashant Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home, Lko.