Allowed

Akhilesh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Allahabad HC12 Aug 2024BAIL/8647/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail application allowed the release of the applicant Akhilesh granted bail on the basis that the recovered quantity was below commercial limits, there was compulsion in seizure, and the co-accused was already released on bail.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each subject to conditions regarding attendance and non-adjudication.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:55620

¶2

Court No. - 32

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8647 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Akhilesh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Shresth Agarwal,Salma Bano Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.

¶7

Case has been taken up through video conferencing.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Gyanandra Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶9

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No.258 of 2023 under section 8/21 N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station Gosainganj District Lucknow.

¶10

4.It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that 60 grams of Smack powder is alleged to have been recovered from the possession of the applicant, which is below the commercial quantity. He has further submitted that there is non compliance of mandatory provision of Section 50 of N.D.P.S. Act because search of the applicant has not been done before the Gazetted Officer and out of coercion, search and seizure has been made by the police. He has further submitted that there is no independent eye witness of search and seizure and false recovery of contraband substance has been made. He has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that co-accused Nanku has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 06.10.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.11982 of 2023. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the case of the applicant is better footing than that of co-accused Nanku, who has already been granted bail by this Court. The applicant is in jail since 15.06.2023.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. though opposed the prayer for bail but

¶12

could not dispute the fact that co-accused Nanku has been granted bail by this Court.

¶13

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and after hearing learned counsel for the parties and looking into overall facts and circumstances of the case as well as the argument that the recovered contraband substance is below commercial quantity, non compliance of mandatory provision of Section 50 of NDPS Act ; the argument that the case of the applicant is better footing than that of coaccused Nanku, who has been granted bail by this Court and the applicant is in jail since 15.06.2023, therefore, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶14

7. The bail application of the applicant is allowed .

¶15

8. Let applicant, namely, Akhilesh , be released on bail in the above case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned with the following conditions :-

¶16

(i) 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. 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.

¶17

(ii) The applicant 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

(iii) 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, then the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶19

(iv) 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

¶20

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 him in accordance with law.

¶21

It is made clear that the observations made in this order are limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The Trial Court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything in this order.

¶22

(Brij Raj Singh, J.)

¶23

Order Date :- 12.8.2024 dk/

¶24

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

Akhilesh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akhilesh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. 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

Mata Bux Singh vs State of U.P. Thru.Its Addl. Chief Secy. Housing and Urban Planning Deptt. and 4 Others

Arvind Verma vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko.

Ram Babu Bajpai vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Another

Shailendra Verma @ Baba vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Dileep Chaurasiya vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Rajkumar @ Munnu Dwivedi and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko