Allowed

Arpit Maurya v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko

Allahabad HC5 Nov 2024BAIL/8944/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 8944 of 2024, the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, considered a bail plea in a narcotics case involving 51.750 kg of ganja where sampling procedures were allegedly violated. The court found the sampling vitiated but noted the applicant had no prior unexplained history and was languishing in jail. It granted bail on personal and surety bond with specific c

What did the court decide?

Released on bail with a personal bond and two sureties on the condition of preventing witness tampering, ensuring attendance at all trial dates, and compliance with conditions under Sections 313 Cr.P.

Arpit Maurya vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of… — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:74892

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8944 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Arpit Maurya Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Vishun Narain Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

In compliance of the order dated 5.11.2024, Circle Officer concerned and Yadvendra Sonkar are present.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

The 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. 42 of 2024, under sections 8/20 of the N.D.P.S. Act ,Police Station- Katka, District -Ambedkar Nagar.

¶9

Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that as per prosecution story, 51.750 kg of ganja/contraband substance is alleged to have been recovered from the possession of the applicant including the other co-accused persons, though there is no independent eye witness of the alleged recovery. He added that in violation of the provisions of Rules 9 and 10 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Seizur, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules 2022) only one sample was taken from one packet out of 50 packets and the subsequent samples were taken but not at the same point of time rather it was on the observation of the Magistrate. He stated that he has taken specific plea in paragraph no. 8 of the bail application, which has not been properly replied and it has not been corroborated that there is compliance of the Rules 9 and 10 of the Rules 2022. Adding his arguments he submits that the whole proceedings of recovery vitiates in the eyes of law and the trial will not lead to the punishment. He next submits that he has explained criminal history in supplementary affidavit except apart he has no criminal history. He further added that the applicant is languishing in jail since 11.3.2024 and he undertakes that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶10

Per contra, learned AGA appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that specific reply has been given in paragraph no. 3 of the affidavit, as one of the samples was taken before Nayab Tahsildar and thereafter, it was indicated by the Magistrate and thereafter the other samples were taken. He also submits that the applicant has criminal antecedents of nine cases and he is repeatedly involved in offences, as such he is not entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶11

Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires that 51.750 kg of ganja/contraband substance is alleged to have been recovered from the possession of the present applicant, though the same has been made in violation of provisions of Rules, 2022; the officer, who has recovered the contraband substance is present and he has also stated that the at the time of recovery one sample was sent and other samples were taken subsequently when it was indicated by the Magistrate concerned. This court has also taken note of the fact that the sampling of the alleged contraband substance is vitiated. Further criminal history of the applicant has been explained; applicant is languishing in jail since 11.3.2024; coupled with the fact that the applicant has undertaken that if he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶12

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 fit case of bail.

¶13

Let the applicant Arpit Maurya , 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:-

¶14

(1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial;

¶15

(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

¶16

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

The appearance of Circle Officer and Yadvendra Sonkar are hereby exempted.

¶22

Order Date :- 13.11.2024 Anu j S ing h

¶23

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

Arpit Maurya v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arpit Maurya v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. 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

Balram vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Others

Balram vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Others

Brijbushan Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Karrar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Tej Pratap Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Gautam Shukla vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.