Allowed

Anurag Singh v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Civil Secrt. Lko.

Allahabad HC23 Feb 2024BAIL/2068/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application under NDPS Act for recovery of 305 grams of smack, slightly above commercial quantity. Court noted absence of independent witness and prima facie non-compliance with Sections 50 and 52-A, applicant in jail since December 2023, and granted bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties each in like amount, with four conditions regarding conduct during trial.

Anurag Singh vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt… — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:55995

¶2

Court No. - 28

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2068 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Anurag Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Civil Secrt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Ramakar Shukla,Abhay Pratap Verma,Ajay Kumar Soni,Jay Prakash Singh Vats Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

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

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release the applicant on bail during the trial in Case Crime No.337 of 2023, under Section 8/21 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, P.S. Jamo, District Amethi.

¶8

As per allegation in the F.I.R. contraband substance, i.e.,305 gram of smack is said to have been recovered from the possession of the applicant by the police.

¶9

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely planted by the police. Contraband substance, i.e., 305 gram of smack, which is said to have been recovered from the possession of the applicant, is slightest above the commercial quantity. There is no independent witness of the alleged recovery. He submits that there is non-compliance of Sections 50 and 52 (A) of N.D.P.S. Act and the plea in this regard has been taken in paras 9 and 10 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application to which no proper and satisfactory reply has been given by the State. 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. There is no previous criminal history of the applicant, which has specifically been explained in para 21 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application. He further added that charge sheet has been filed and there is no possibility of fleeing away from the investigation proceedings.

¶10

Further submitted that the applicant is in jail since 16.12.2023 and in case, he 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., 305 gram of smack 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. 305 gram of smack, which is slightest above than the non commercial quantity; there is no independent public eye witness of the alleged recovery; prima facie there seems to be the non compliance of Sections 50 and 52 (A) of the NDPS Act; the criminal history of the applicant has been explained in para 21 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application; and the applicant is languishing in jail since 16.12.2023.

¶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 Anurag 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 the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial;

¶16

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

¶17

(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

¶18

(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.

¶19

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.

¶20

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.

¶21

Order Date :- 13.8.2024 Ram Murti

¶22

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

Anurag Singh v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Civil Secrt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anurag Singh v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Civil Secrt. 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

Subedar Vs Ishaq and Others

Sukhram Vs Smt. Janak Dulari and 6 Ors.

Parmanand Shukla Vs Sri Bans Gopal Maurya Principal Secy.Secondary Edu. Govt.

Vijay Kumar Singh Vs Praveen Mani Tripathi and Ors.

Ramesh Chandra Bajpai Vs Alok Dixit Managing Dir. Ex. Officer Member of C/M Board of

Amita Vs Arvind Kumar Prin. Secy. Medical and Health Family and Another