Allowed

Savej v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC5 May 2025BAIL/5453/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application under NDPS Act for alleged recovery of 100 grams smack, below commercial quantity. Court noted lack of independent witness support and Section 50 compliance arguments and allowed bail on personal bond with two sureties and conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties, with conditions on evidence tampering, trial cooperation and no criminal activity.

Savej Vs State of U.P. — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:72591

¶2

Court No. - 68

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5453 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Savej Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Rajesh Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record of the case.

¶7

The present bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed on behalf of applicant, Savej with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 255 of 2024, under Section 8/21/29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station- Chilkana, DistrictSaharanpur.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that 100 grams of Smack is alleged to have been recovered from the possession of the applicant, which is below commercial quantity. In fact no such recovery was effected from the applicant. It is further submitted that since such recovery is not supported by independent witness, possibility of his false implication in the crime cannot be ruled out. It is next contended that in the present case the prosecution has failed to follow strictly the provisions of Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act. It is also argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present crime with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and victimize him. The applicant, who is in jail since 14.11.2024 having no criminal history to his credit, deserves to be released on bail. In case the applicant is released on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶9

Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage who is involved in supplying contraband, therefore, the applicant does not deserve any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activity.

¶10

Considering the facts of the case, larger mandate of Article 21 of the constitution of India, the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accusedapplicant, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the

¶11

witnesses being tampered with, the larger interest of the public/ State and other circumstances, but without expressing any opinion on the merits, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail.

¶12

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶13

Let the applicant Savej involved in abovesaid case 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 that :-

¶14

The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶15

The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶16

The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶17

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶18

Order Date :- 6.5.2025 Ravi Prakash

¶19

(Ashutosh Srivastava, J.)

¶20

Digitally signed by :- RAVI PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Savej v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Savej 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases