Karan vs State Of U.P.
2016 Latest Caselaw 7548 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 46
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 43508 of 2016
 

 
Applicant :- Karan
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Dutta Pandey
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 
Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis, J.

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

The present bail application has been moved by the applicant - Karan, in Case Crime No. 819 of 2016, under Section 20/22 N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station ? Kotwali, District -Mathura, with a prayer that he may be admitted to bail.

It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant, that the applicant is said to have been found in possession of 610 gram of Diazepam powder of which no compliance of the mandatory provisions of the said Act has been done at the time of alleged recovery, there is no independent witness of the alleged recovery and no chemical analysis report to support the prosecution case. The applicant has been falsely implicated in the case due to personal vendetta. The applicant is in jail since 18.08.2016, and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and has contended that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at the pre-trial stage who is engaged in supplying contraband which is harmful to the society. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail he ill again indulge in similar activity, therefore, the applicant does not deserve any indulgence of bail.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, but without expressing any opinion upon the merits of the case, let the applicant ? Karan involved in Case Crime No. 819 of 2016, under Section 20/22 of N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station ? Kotwali, District ? Mathura, be enlarged on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:-

I. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

II. The applicant will not pressurize / intimidate the prosecution witness.

III. The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed.

In defiance of the above conditions, the prosecution would be at liberty to move application for cancellation of bail of the applicant.

Order Date :- 14.12.2016.

Vinod.