Allowed

Jamal v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Allahabad HC1 Feb 2024/702/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed bail to the applicant charged under Sections 8/21 NDPS Act for morphine recovery. Relying on non-compliance with Section 50 NDPS Act, below commercial quantity of drugs, and custody period, the court found no merit in opposing arguments. Bail granted on personal bond and sureties with strict conditions.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicant on bail by providing personal bond and two sureties, subject to specific conditions including prohibition on witness tampering and mandatory attendance in court.

Jamal Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt… — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:9596

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 702 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Jamal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Upendra Prakash Pathak,Mansi Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

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

¶7

It is alleged in the FIR that while patrolling duty, a suspicious person was located by the police who was stopped by them, then he rushed towards Damaul crossing road where he was apprehended and from his personal search 220 gram morphine was recovered.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that provisions of section 50 NDPS Act have not been complied with. The recovered quantity is below commercial. The applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. Although the incident took place at the crossing which is a public place, still, there is no eye witness of the alleged incident.

¶9

It is further submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 18.09.2023. There is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail submitting that the applicant has a criminal history of the same nature.

¶11

Perused the record. Perusal of the recovery memo shows that prima facie there is no compliance of Section 50 of NDPS Act and also even after weighment, the weight of the recovered article has not been mentioned in the fard.

¶12

On due consideration to the fact that recovered quantity is below commercial and provisions of Section 50 of NDPS Act have not been complied with, coupled with the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 18.09.2023 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a

¶13

fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶14

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶15

Let the applicant, Jamal, involved in Case Crime/FIR No. 245/2023, under Sections 8/21 NDPS Act, Police Station - Jahangirabad, District - Barabanki, 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 which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶16

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶17

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶18

(iii) 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 officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶19

(iv) 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.

¶20

(v) 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.

¶21

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

¶22

Order Date :- 1.2.2024 R.C.

¶23

Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Jamal v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jamal v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home 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

Zubair Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Civil Lko. and 3 Others

Dharmender @ Dharmendra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrett. U.P. Lko.

Riyaj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Sonu Kumar Maurya Vs State of U.P Thru. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Himanshu Saroj Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

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