SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Online)(ALL) 291

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
MANIK CHANDRA – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
BAIL/44679/2022



In cases involving the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, the mandatory provisions of the Act must be strictly complied with, and the prosecution must provide independent evidence to support the charges.

Headnote:

BAIL - NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT, 1985 - SECTION 8/20 - BAIL APPLICATION - APPLICANT IMPLICATED IN FALSE CASE - NO INDEPENDENT WITNESS TO RECOVERY - MANDATORY PROVISIONS OF ACT NOT COMPLIED WITH - SUBSTANCE WEIGHED ALONG WITH PACKAGING - NO ACCURATE INSTRUMENTS USED - APPLICANT ENTITLED TO BAIL.

Fact of the Case:

The applicant was arrested and charged under Sections 8/20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, for allegedly possessing 1120 grams of Charas. The applicant claimed that he was falsely implicated, that the recovery was false, and that the mandatory provisions of the Act were not complied with.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that there was no independent witness to the recovery, that the mandatory provisions of the Act were not complied with, and that the substance was weighed along with its packaging, which inflated the weight. The court also noted that no accurate instruments were used for measurement.

Issues: Whether the applicant was falsely implicated in the case.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the applicant was entitled to bail because there was no independent witness to the recovery, the mandatory provisions of the Act were not complied with, and the substance was weighed along with its packaging, which inflated the weight.

Final Decision: The court granted the applicant bail on the condition that he appear on the date fixed by the trial court, not tamper with the prosecution evidence, and not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.

Court No. - 75

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44679

of 2022

Applicant :- Manik Chandra

Opposite Party :- State of U.P.

Counsel for Applicant :- Sudhanshu Kumar Singh

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vikas Sahai,

learned AGA for the State-opposite party.

The instant bail application, under Section 439 Cr.P.C., has been

filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case

Crime No. 724 of 2022, under Sections 8/20 of N.D.P.S. Act,

Police Station- Uttar, District- Firozabad during the pendency

of trial.

It is submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in

the instant case. False recovery of 1120 grams Charas has been

shown from the applicant. There is no independent witness to

the recovery. The mandatory provisions of N.D.P.S. Act have

not been complied with. While weighing the recovered

substance, the police has weighed it along with polythene and

paper, in which it was kept. The police has deliberately shown

the quantity of the alleged narcotics substance marginally

higher in order to add to the gravity of the offence. No accurate

scientific instruments were used for measurement. The

applicant has no criminal history to his credit. The applicant is

in jail since 31.08.2022. In case he is enlarged on bail, he will

not misuse the said liberty.

Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail but could not

satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

Perused the material on record.

Having regard to the submissions made but without

commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the

applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

Let the applicant- Manik Chandra involved in aforesaid case

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 subject to the conditions that he:

(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;

(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the

prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation

application before this Court.

Order Date :- 6.1.2023

Aditya

Digitally signed by :-

ADITYA KUSHWAHA

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top