Allowed

Guru Prasad v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow

Allahabad HC22 Feb 2024BAIL/1912/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application in an NDPS case involving recovery of 290 grams heroin from three persons. The court noted a prima facie defect in the sampling process per cited precedents, absence of criminal history, and granted bail without expressing opinion on merit.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail in FIR/Case Crime No. 736 of 2023 on furnishing personal bonds and two reliable sureties of Rs.35,000/- each, subject to standard conditions.

Guru Prasad vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home… — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:39125

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1912 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Guru Prasad Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow Counsel for Applicant :- Rama Kant Giri,Ashok Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

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

¶7

2 . In terms of the FIR, allegedly on the basis of a search carried out from three persons, 290 grams Heroin was recovered.

¶8

3 . In the light of the said, the submission of the counsel for the applicant is that the co-accused was enlarged on bail vide order dated 23.01.2024. It is further argued that the recovery is not in the presence of any independent witnesses and the mandate of Section 52A of the NDPS Act has not been followed. He places reliance on the judgment in the case of Mohd Muslim @ Hussain vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in 2023 Live Law (SC) 260 and in the case of Yusuf @ Asif Vs. State : Criminal Appeal No.3191 of 2023 arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No.3010 of 202 . He lastly argued that the applicant has no criminal history and is in custody since 10.12.2023 and the trial has not even started.

¶9

4. Learned A.G.A. opposed the bail prayer, however, he does not dispute the fact that the applicant has no criminal history.

¶10

5. Considering the submissions made at the Bar, prima facie , on a conjoint reading of law as

¶11

explained in the case of Mohd Muslim @ Hussain vs. State (Supra) and the effect of nonfollowing the mandate of section 52-A of the NDPS Act as explained in the case of Yusuf @ Asif Vs. State (Supra), prima facie, in the present case, there is a defect in so far as sampling process is concerned, on that basis coupled with the fact that the applicant has no criminal history and there is nothing on record to demonstrate that the applicant if enlarged on bail, would in any way adversely affect the trial and without expressing any opinion on merit, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶12

6. Let the applicant Guru Prasad be released on bail in FIR/ Case Crime No. 736 of 2023, under Section 8/21 NDPS Act, Police Station Gola, District Kheri, on his furnishing personal bonds and two reliable sureties of Rs.35,000/- 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 officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶16

Order Date :- 22.5.2024 Arun

¶17

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

Guru Prasad v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Guru Prasad v. State of U.P. Thru. Its 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Vishal Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Deptt. of Home, Lucknow

Dheeraj Pandey Vs State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Civil Secretariat, Lucknow

Virendra Kumar Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Secy. Home Sectt. Lko

Mohsin Raza Vs State of Up. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Sadhna Bajpai Vs State of U.P., Thru. Prin. the Secy. Home Deptt., Civil Secrtt. Lko.

Salman Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.