Allahabad High Court
Amresh Verma vs State Of U.P. on 26 November, 2019
Author: Karunesh Singh Pawar
Bench: Karunesh Singh Pawar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 27 Case :- BAIL No. - 10598 of 2019 Applicant :- Amresh Verma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
Learned counsel for applicant contended that applicant has motor Garage in district Barabanki in the name and style of Ansh Automobiles in which repairing and servicing of motorcycle is done. Since the applicant refused to do servicing of motorcycle of police Constables therefore, he has been falsely been implicated in the present case. The alleged recovery of morphine of 260 gms is false and fabricated. It is next contended that the mandatory provisions of sections 55 and 57 of NDPS Act have not been followed and search has not been done before Gazetted Officer and was not apprise of his right regarding personal search. The seal of the contraband has not been handed over to the public eye witness. The necessary information has not been sent to the higher authorities within 48 hours. The alleged recovery of contraband is slightly above commercial.The applicant is in jail since 24.08.2019.
Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and contended that the recovered contraband is slightly below commercial Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and also considering the nature of allegations, arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, and also considering twin condition as mentioned in Section 37 (1) (b) of NDPS Act, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.
Let applicant Amresh Verma, involved in Case Crime No.321 of 2019, under Section 8/21 NDPS Act, Police Station-Satrikh, 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 :- 26.11.2019 P.s.