Allowed

Digvijay Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC24 Jun 2024/5503/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal miscellaneous bail application, the Allahabad High Court considered the plea for bail in an NDPS case involving recovery of 1100 grams of Ganja. The court noted non-compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act and lack of independent witness, applying the reformative theory of punishment to grant bail.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions including no tampering with evidence and personal appearance on vital dates.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:44050

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5503 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Digvijay Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Bharat Kumar Dixit Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Anirudh Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶7

Instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail during the trial in Case Crime No.155 of 2024, under Section 8/20 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, P.S. -Lalganj, District -Raebareli.

¶8

As per prosecution version, the contraband substance, i.e. 1100 grams of Ganja is said to be recovered from the possession of the applicant and the same is below than the commercial quantity.

¶9

Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been planted by the police in the instant matter. He next added that 1100 grams of Ganja is said to be recovered from the possession of the present applicant, which is below than the commercial quantity. There is no public eye witness of the alleged recovery. He submits that there is non-compliance of Section 50 of N.D.P.S. Act and in support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the Judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Arif Khan @ Agha Khan vs. State of Uttarakhand, (2018) 18 SCC 380 wherein it has been held that mandatory procedure of Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act has to be complied with in regard to search and recovery. He further added that there are eight cases

¶10

criminal history against the applicant which he has explained in paragraph 10 of the afÏdavit filed in support of the bail application. He next added that the applicant is a law abiding citizen and is languishing in jail since 22-03-2024. He next submits that in case, the applicant is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶11

Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer of bail and submits that applicant was involved in committing the aforesaid offence as contraband substance i.e. Ganja has been recovered from his possession and, as such, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.

¶12

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of record, it is evident that recovered contraband substance, i.e. 1100 grams of Ganja, is below than the commercial quantity; there is no independent public eye witness of the alleged recovery; there is non compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act; the criminal history of the applicant has been explained in para 10 of the bail application; and the applicant is languishing in jail since 22.03.2024.

¶13

Considering the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a case of bail.

¶14

Let the applicant, Digvijay Singh, involved in the aforementioned crime be released on bail, 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:-

¶15

(1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing

¶16

the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial;

¶17

(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 sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code;

¶18

(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

¶19

(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.

¶20

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.

¶21

It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case.

¶22

Order Date :- 24.6.2024

¶23

AKS

¶24

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

Digvijay Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Digvijay Singh 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

Lal Babu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Dheeraj Kumar Upadhayay @ Baba vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Dinesh Tiwari vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Smt. Jyoti Maurya Thru. Her Husband Sri Himanshu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Vijaya Nand Maurya and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. U.P. and Another

Hemraj Alias Kallu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others