Allowed

Chhotu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko.

Allahabad HC20 Mar 2024BAIL/3233/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal bail application, the Allahabad High Court released the accused on bail in a case involving the recovery of morphine (less than commercial quantity). The court held that the failure to comply with sections 50 and 52-A of the NDPS Act during recovery, coupled with the absence of criminal history, warranted bail.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail via personal bond and two sureties, conditioned to appear in court, avoid similar offences, and not tamper with evidence.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:24777

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3233 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Chhotu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- S Malik E Ashtar Rizvi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

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

¶7

The accused-applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.269 of 2023 under section 8/21 NDPS Act, P.S. Kursi, District Barabanki.

¶8

In terms of the FIR, allegedly from the pocket of the applicant 225 grams of morphine was recovered.

¶9

In the light of the said allegations, the counsel for the applicant argues that the recovery is less than the commercial quantity. He also argues that as the recovery was effected from the pocket of the applicant, as such, the mandate of section 50 of the NDPS Act has not been followed and even the mandate of Section 52-A of the Act has also not been followed. The applicant has no criminal history of an offence under the NDPS Act, which fact is admitted by the learned AGA.

¶10

Considering the fact that the recovery is less than the commercial quantity and prima-facie the mandate of Section 50 and 52-A has not been followed coupled with the fact that the applicant has no criminal antecedents of an offence under the NDPS Act, the applicant is entitled for the bail. Thus the bail application is allowed.

¶11

Let the applicant Chhotu be released on bail in aforesaid first information report number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

(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.

¶15

Order Date :- 20.3.2024

¶16

VNP/-

¶17

Digitally signed by :- VISHVANATH PRASAD SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Chhotu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chhotu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. 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

Shahnaaz Bano Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt., Lko.

Ajeet Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow

Shivraj Kashyap Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Suresh Kumar vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home

Ahsan Quraishi and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Kumar Raje vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief. Secy./ Prin. Secy. Lko and Another