Allahabad High Court
Taufik Ahmad vs State Of U.P. on 16 July, 2019
Author: Karunesh Singh Pawar
Bench: Karunesh Singh Pawar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 29 Case :- BAIL No. - 6124 of 2019 Applicant :- Taufik Ahmad Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Rao,Atul Kumar Singh Gaur Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.
Counter affidavit filed by learned AGA is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that as per the FIR, information was given by the informant that on 27.5.2019 the complainant along with other police personnel reached near Aalhanmau school where a lame person from left leg seeing the police tried to conceal himself behind the trees. The police captured him and on searching him about 100 gms of morphine was said to have been recovered. It is further contended that mandatory provisions of section 50 of NDPS Act has not been complied. The procedure for search and seizure was not followed. It is also contended that the sample of the alleged contraband was not taken on the spot which is in violation of Government notification. It is further contended that the recovered quantity is much below the commercial. The applicant is in jail since 27.5.2019.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and for the period for which he is in jail, and also considering twin condition as mentioned in Section 37 (1) (b) of NDPS Act, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.
Let the applicant Taufik Ahmad involved in Case Crime No.181 of 2019, under Sections 8/21 NDPS Act, Police Station-Tikait Nagar, District- Barabanki 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 which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(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 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.
(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he 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.
(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 of the Indian Penal Code.
(vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his 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, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.
Order Date :- 16.7.2019 P.s.