Allowed

Dashrath Chinam v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC1 Apr 2025BAIL/2549/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail sought by the accused-applicant in an NDPS case, claiming parity with co-accused Shankar Harijan who was already released on bail, no criminal antecedent, and no likelihood of fleeing or tampering with evidence. The court considered the nature of accusations, severity of punishment, evidence, and prima facie case, allowed bail subject to conditions including non-tampering with evidence, no cr

What did the court decide?

Accused-applicant released on bail on executing a personal bond and two reliable sureties, subject to conditions of no tampering, no criminal activity, no witness intimidation, and regular appearance.

Dashrath Chinam vs State of U.P. — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:45136

¶2

Court No. - 68

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2549 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Dashrath Chinam Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Hare Ram Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Hare Ram Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Shashank Singh, Advocate, brief holder of learned AGA for the State-respondents and perused the record.

¶7

This bail application under Section 483 BNSS has been moved on behalf of accused-applicant, Dashrath Chinam, seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 191 of 2024, under Section 8/20 NDPS Act, Police Station- Raipura, District- Chitrakoot.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the accusedapplicant is innocent. He has been falsely implicated in this very case crime number and is languishing in jail since 13.11.2024. It is submitted that similarly placed co-accused, Shankar Harijan, has already been enlarged on bail of by the Bench of this Court by order dated 20.03.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1071 of 2025, copy of the bail order produced by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record. He further submitted that since the role of the applicant is identical to that of coaccused,Shankar Harijan, who has already been enlarged on bail, he is also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. He has no criminal antecedent and there is no likelihood of his fleeing from course of justice or tampering with evidence in case of release on bail. Hence, bail has been prayed for.

¶9

Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.

¶10

Considering all above facts and circumstances, the nature of accusations, severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness and prima facie case, but without commenting on merit of case, a case for bail is made out.

¶11

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶12

Let the accused-applicant, Dashrath Chinam involved in above mentioned case crime number be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each, in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:

¶13

The applicant will not tamper with the evidence.

¶14

The applicant will not indulge in any criminal activity.

¶15

The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and co-operate in the trial.

¶16

The applicant will appear regularly on each and every date fixed by the trial court, unless his personal appearance is exempted through counsel by the court concerned.

¶17

In the event of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the court below will be at liberty to proceed to cancel his bail.

¶18

Order Date :- 1.4.2025

¶19

v.k.updh.

¶20

Digitally signed by :- VINOD KUMAR UPADHYAY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Dashrath Chinam v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dashrath Chinam v. State of U.P.

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

Similar cases

Aryan vs State of U.P.

Jabir vs State of U.P.

Shahid vs State of U.P.

Mohd. Gufran vs State of U.P.

Narsingh Khillo and Another vs State of U.P.

Nitin Kumar vs State of U.P.