Allowed

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

Allahabad HC12 Jun 2024BAIL/4067/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to an applicant in an NDPS Act case, noting prima facie violations in sampling procedure and the release of a similarly situated co-accused. The court held that the applicant's no prior criminal history and undertaking not to misuse liberty warranted release under Article 21.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to applicant on furnishing personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions regarding court attendance and non-tampering with evidence.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:73428

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4067 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Sukhchain 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,Mulayam Singh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA 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, Police Station 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

Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is languishing in jail since 12.02.2024. The identically situated co-accused, namely, Gopi Singh has already been released on bail by this Court vide order dated 23.10.2024 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 3902 of 2024. He next added 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 NDPS Act as well as the Rules made thereof.

¶10

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

¶11

granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶12

Per contra, learned AGA 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 and the fact that similarly situated co-accused has already been granted bail.

¶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; similarly situated co-accused has already been granted bail; the applicant has no previous criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 12.02.2024, 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- Sukhchain 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 :- 6.11.2024 kkv/

¶23

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukhchain 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

Ayodhya Prasad Rawat vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Dukh Haran Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

Pawan Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko.

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

Tatheer Jafri Alias Allika ( Real Name Tatheer Jafri ) and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. / Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Suraj Kumar vs State of U.P.Thru. Prin. Secy. Home,Civil Sectt. U.P. Lko.