Bachhau v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.
Case brief
What is this about?
The applicant challenged bail by claiming procedural non-compliance with Section 52(A)(2) of the NDPS Act, 1985. The State requested ten days to file a supplementary counter-affidavit to reply to specific paragraphs of the bail application. The matter was listed for future proceedings.
What the court decided
Court No. - 15
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7066 of 2024
Applicant :- Bachhau Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.
Learned counsel for the applicant, while pressing the bail application, has drawn attention of this Court towards Paragraph no. 11 of the bail application and submitted that he has taken specific plea that the sample was not taken before the Magistrate, therefore, there is non-compliance of Section 52(A) (2) of the NDPS Act, 1985, but the same has not been replied in specific words in Paragraph no. 12 of the counter affidavit.
At this juncture, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that he may be granted ten days' time to file supplementary counter affidavit so as to give specific reply of Paragraph nos. 10, 11 and 12 of the bail application.
List in the week commencing 11.11.2024.
Order Date :- 24.10.2024 kkv/
Digitally signed by :- KRISHAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the failure to take a sample before the Magistrate warrants compliance of Section 52(A)(2) of the NDPS Act for bail purposes.
Whether the State has adequately replied to specific pleas regarding procedural non-compliance in the counter affidavit.
Parties & counsel
- applicant
Bachhau
Coram
Shree Prakash Singh
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Allahabad HC
- Decided on
- · September
- Registered
- Case no.
- BAIL/7066/2024
All orders in this case
12 orders share this CNR
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Nazia Hasan vs State of U.P. Thru. the Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Basic Education Lko and 3 Others
Sandip Kumar and 31 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Basic Education Lko and 17 Others
Jai Shanker Lal Srivastava vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Communication New Delhi and 2 Others
Musheera vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Nagar Vikas Vibhag U.P. Lko. and 4 Others