Allowed

Chandra Prakash Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC2 Apr 2025BAIL/2628/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a bail application under Sections 8/20 of the NDPS Act. The court observed that compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act appeared cursory and actual possession was a matter for evidence. Relying on the principle that bail is the norm, the court granted bail subject to strict conditions regarding court attendance.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the trial court, subject to conditions regarding attendance and conduct during trial.

Chandra Prakash Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:18132

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2628 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Chandra Prakash Verma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and perused the record.

¶7

First bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.43 of 2025, under Section 8/20 N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station Rupaideeha, District Bahraich.

¶8

As per contents of first information report, the incident is said to have taken place on 17.02.2025 where police party on the basis of information provided intercepted a motorcycle on which the applicant alongwith co-accused was travelling and recovered 10.751 Kg. of ganja.

¶9

It has been submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him and that except for the confessional statement, in fact there is no recovery from the applicant at all. It is submitted that even provisions of Section 50 of NDPS have not been substantially complied with.

¶10

Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed bail application with the submission that a perusal of first information report reveals the recovery being made from applicant. It is however admitted that previous criminal history of applicant has been explained.

¶11

Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation , reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 has specifically held that bail is to be a norm and an under-trial is not required to be in jail for ever pending trial. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment are as under :-

¶12

"21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty."

¶13

"27. This Court, time and again, has stated that bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. It has also observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution."

¶14

Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of material on record, prima facie, and

¶15

subject to further evidence being led in trial, it appears that the applicant along with co-accused was intercepted on the basis of information supplied by police informer and the compliance of Section 50 of NDPS Act appears to be only cursory. The aspect of actual possession of illegal narcotic from the applicant will be the subject matter of evidence. The applicant is under incarceration since 17.02.2025 and his previous criminal history has been explained, as such, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

¶16

8. Accordingly bail application is allowed.

¶17

Let applicant Chandra Prakash Verma , involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his/her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶18

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he/she 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.

¶19

(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/her under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶20

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his/her 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/her, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶21

(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 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/her in accordance with law.

¶22

Order Date :- 2.4.2025 kvg/-

¶23

Digitally signed by :- GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Chandra Prakash Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandra Prakash Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ranjeet Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Lko. and 4 Others

Brij Bhushan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Civil Sectt. Lko and 4 Others

Shashi Bhushan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Lko. and 4 Others

Imran @ Imran Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Dharmendra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

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