Raj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:39997

¶2

Court No. - 30

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2292 of 2025

¶4

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

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Ambrish Singh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.

¶8

As per the prosecution case, a recovery of 14.4 Grams of Alprazolam allegedly was recovered from the possession of the applicant.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. It is further submitted that there is non-compliance of Section 50 (1) of the NDPS Act as the search has not been conducted in the presence of Magistrate/Gazetted Officer. Additionally, search was not made as per the provisions of Section 100 Cr.P.C. He also states that there is non-compliance with Sections 55 and 57 of the Act, as the seal after packing the contraband was not handed over to any public independent witness, and the necessary reports were not submitted to the superior officers within 48 hours, as mandated.

¶10

Learned counsel further submits that the alleged recovery falls under the category of ‘below commercial quantity’ as defined in the Schedule appended to the NDPS Act, and therefore, the rigors of Section 37 of the Act are not applicable in the present case. The applicant is in custody since 01.01.2025. There is no possibility of the applicant absconding or tampering with the witnesses, and in case he is released on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶11

Learned Counsel for the applicant drawing attention to supplementary affidavit has submitted that Case Crime No 0489 of 2023, under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Case Crime No. 0506 of 2022, under Section 294 I.P.C., were lodged against the applicant at Police Station Nawabganj, district Gonda. He submits that in first case i.e. Case Crime No 489 of 2023, final report was submitted and the same was accepted by the trial Court, whereas in second case i.e. Case Crime No. 506 of 2022, Section 294 I.P.C. is bailable offence and charge-sheet has already been filed before the Court concerned.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶13

Perused the record.

¶14

Considering the submissions advanced, perusal of the record,

¶15

the fact that the recovered quantity is below commercial quantity, the provisions of Section 37 NDPS Act are not attracted, applicant’s period of incarceration, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court finds it to be a fit case for grant of bail.

¶16

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶17

Let the applicant, Raj , involved in the aforesaid case crime number, 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, subject to the following conditions imposed in the interest of justice :-

¶18

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶19

(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize or intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

¶20

(iii) The applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶21

(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence

¶22

when the witnesses are present in Court. In case of default, it

¶23

shall be open to the trial court to treat it as an abuse of the liberty of bail and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶24

(v) 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 IPC (now Section 269 of BNS).

¶25

(vi) In case the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and to secure his presence, proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. (now Section 84 of BNSS) are initiated, and he fails to appear on the date fixed in such proclamation, then the trial court shall proceed against him under Section 174-A IPC (now Section 209 of BNS), in accordance with law.

¶26

(Om Prakash Shukla, J.)

¶27

Order Date :- 14.7.2025 Ajit

¶28

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Abhishek Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko and Another

Baliram @ Balram Nishad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Krishnakant Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Uday Raj vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

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

Suman Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 11 Others