Allowed

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

Allahabad HC12 Apr 2024BAIL/3902/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted bail to the applicant in an NDPS case involving 89.33 K.G. of Doda poppy straw. The decision was based on prima facie findings of sampling irregularities, lack of previous criminal antecedents, and the applicant's undertaking to cooperate with the trial.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions regarding court attendance and non-interference with witnesses.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:71583

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3902 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Gopi Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy.Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Mukesh Kumar Tewari,Amresh Kumar,Dinesh Kumar,Lok Pati Yadav 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 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. 0057 of 2024, under sections 8/15/29/60(3) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, P.S.Haidergarh, District-Barabanki.

¶8

As per prosecution version, the contraband substance, i.e. 89.33 K.G. of Doda poppy straw, is said to be recovered from the possession of the applicant.

¶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 89.33 K.G. of Doda Poppy Straw is said to be recovered from the possession of the present applicant, which is above than the commercial quantity, though there is no independent public eye witness of the recovery. He submits that the sampling is done against the provisions of Section 52-A of the N.D.P.S. Act as well as the Rules made thereof.

¶10

He has also drawn attention of this court towards the Forensic Science Laboratory Report and

¶11

submitted that it seems that the sample of other offence has been taken for report as the quantity is shown as 50.2 gram, though it was sent as 2 K.G. as per the recovery memo. He added that whole proceeding of sampling as well as testing at Forensic Science Laboratory vitiates in the eyes of law. He also added that the applicant has no previous criminal antecedent as is mentioned in paragraph no. 23 of the bail application and he is languishing in jail since 12-02-2024. Further submitted that the applicant undertakes that in case he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶12

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the contentions aforesaid, but, he could not dispute the fact with respect to quantity of sample, which is contradicted by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶13

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of record, it transpires that prima-facie, there seems to be violation of the procedure of the sampling; the applicant has no previous criminal antecedent and he is languishing in jail since 12-02-2204 coupled with the fact that he has undertaken that if he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶14

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.

¶15

Let the applicant, Gopi 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:-

¶16

(1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing 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 sufficient 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 :- 23.10.2024 AKS

¶23

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopi 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rajneesh Kumar Srivastava Vs State of U.P. through Its Secy.Deptt.of Edu.Higher and Ors.

Navdeep Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy.Higher Education and Ors.

Kandhai Lal Vs State of U.P.through Secy. Secondary Education Govt. of U.P.

Sukhchain Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Saddam @ Saddam Husain and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Shiv Poojan Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Forest Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others