Allowed

Kaleem v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Civil Sectt. Lko

Allahabad HC11 Dec 2024BAIL/738/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application under section 8/20 NDPS Act for recovery of 1 kg 200 grams charas. Court noted absence of independent public eye witness, non-compliance with Rule 13 of the Rules 2022 due to 8-day delay in sending samples, explained criminal history, and prolonged incarceration; released the applicant on bail without expressing views on merits.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties, subject to stated conditions including non-tampering with evidence and attendance at trial stages.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:83086

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 738 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Kaleem Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Civil Sectt. Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Ajey Singh,Brij Bhushan Singh,Manoj Kumar Singh,Pranjal Apurva,Sandeep Kumar Mishra 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. 03 of 2024, under section 8/20 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,1985, P.S.-Gilaula, District-Shrawasti.

¶8

As per prosecution version, the contraband substance, i.e. 1 K.G. and 200 grams of 'Charas', 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 1 K.G. and 200 grams of 'Charas' is said to be recovered from the possession of the present applicant, which is admittedly, above the commercial quantity, but, there is no independent public eye witness of the alleged recovery. He submits that the samples were taken, but, those were sent after about 8 days, which is in contravention of the provisions of Rule 13 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances(Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022, (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules, 2022'). He added that the applicant is a law abiding citizen and he is languishing in jail since 02-01-2024 and he has also explained five cases criminal history and there is no possibility that the

¶10

trial would be concluded in near future. Further submitted that the the applicant undertakes that in case is 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. has opposed the prayer for grant of bail and submits that applicant was involved in committing the aforesaid offence as contraband substance i.e. 'Charas', has been recovered from his possession and, as such, he is not entitled to be released on bail, but, he could not dispute the fact that why the samples were sent with inordinate delay of 8 days to the F.S.L.

¶12

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of record, it is evident that recovered contraband substance, i.e. 1 K.G. and 200 grams of 'Charas';there is no independent public eye witness of the alleged recovery; there is non compliance of Rule 13 of the Rules,2022; criminal history of the applicant has been explained and he is languishing in jail since 02.01.2024 and the applicant has undertaken that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶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, Kaleem, 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 :- 11.12.2024 AKS

¶22

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

Kaleem v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Civil Sectt. Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kaleem v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Civil Sectt. 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

Intezar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Saiyad Mohammad Naimuddin @ Naim Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko.

Jeeshan Ahmad @ Ahmad Kalam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Sukesh Rajan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko

Kuldeep Singh Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Dileep @ Pankaj Kashyap @ Mintoo Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Deptt.