Allowed

Anwar and Another v. State of U.P. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko

Allahabad HC16 Jul 2024BAIL/7632/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 7632 of 2024, the Allahabad High Court granted bail to two applicants accused under the NDPS Act. The court found it a fit case for bail without expressing an opinion on the merits after hearing counsel, subject to conditions including presence in court and no absconding.

What did the court decide?

Order allowed; applicants released on bail on personal bond and two sureties each, subject to strict undertakings regarding court attendance and conduct during trial.

Anwar and Another vs State of U.P. Addl. Chief Secy… — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:74285

¶2

Court No. - 11

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7632 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Anwar And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶6

Heard Dr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Nirmal Kumar Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

The learned AGA has filed supplementary counter affidavit which is taken on record, wherein, the deponent is Mr. Arvind Kumar presently serving as Circle Officer, Bangermau, Unnao, who is also present in person.

¶8

As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicants are in jail since 06.06.2024 in Case Crime No. 0155 of 2024, under Sections 8, 15, 29, 60(3) of NDPS Act, Police Station- Safipur, District- Unnao.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicants have been falsely implicated as they have not committed any offence as alleged. As per the prosecution, the goods which have been recovered is Doda (Poste ka chilka) having total weight of 13 Kuntal, 81 Kg and 600 Grams in a TATA vehicle bearing no. UP25 DT 1062. The accused no. 1 is the Driver of the vehicle, whereas, the accused no. 2 have been assigned the role of Khalesi/Cleaner. The learned counsel for the applicants has stated that the applicants have been informed by the owner of the vehicle that the bags of vegetables have been loaded in the vehicle but after seizure of the aforesaid goods, it was found that the goods in question is Doda (Poste ka chilka). The aforesaid fact that the goods in question is Doda (Poste ka chilka) has not been disputed by the prosecution. The present applicants are having no previous criminal history of any kind, whatsoever and owner of the vehicle may be asked about the goods. The applicants are unable to explain as to why in the name of vegetables, Doda (Poste ka chilka) has been loaded in the vehicle.

¶10

Learned counsel has further stated that the applicants undertake that they shall cooperate in the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of bail. Further, the applicants shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order, the applicants may be enlarged on bail.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. has, however, opposed the prayer for bail but he could not dispute the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the applicants.

¶12

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, perusing the material available on record, arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.

¶13

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶14

Let the applicants- Anwar and Nijam, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on their furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶15

(i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶16

(ii) The applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶17

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶18

(iv) The applicants 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. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against them in accordance with law.

¶19

(v) The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court.

¶20

Order Date :- 11.11.2024 Anurag

¶21

Digitally signed by :- ANURAG SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Anwar and Another v. State of U.P. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anwar and Another v. State of U.P. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of 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

Dinesh Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Govt. of U.P. Civil Sectt. Lko.

Rahul Kumar Verma and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko and 2 Others

Vinod Kumar Mittal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and Another

Parthviraj Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Jal Shakti (Minor Irrigation) Lko. and 4 Others

Rajendra Prasad vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Irrigation Deptt. Lko and 2 Others

Sandeep Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.