Allahabad High Court
NITAI SARKARversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
Holding
The Court allowed the bail application, granting bail to the applicant subject to a personal bond and specified conditions.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, on behalf of Nitai Sarkar, who was arrested in a NDNDPS case involving alleged possession of 64 kg of ganja. The applicant claimed false implication and alleged non‑compliance with mandatory provisions of Sections 52‑A and 57 of the NDPS Act, while the State contended that those provisions were satisfied and the quantity was commercial. The Court examined the nature of the offence, the applicant’s prior NDPS convictions, and relevant statutory provisions, particularly Section 37 of the NDPS Act, and relied on the Supreme Court precedents Union of India v. Shiv Shanker Kesari (2007) and Nadeem Ahmad v. State of West Bengal (2025). Without expressing an opinion on the merits, the Court held that the case was suitable for bail and ordered release on a personal bond with two sureties and several conditions. The order emphasized that any breach of conditions would lead to cancellation of bail and clarified that the order does not prejudice the trial court’s eventual judgment.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in a case involving alleged commercial quantity of narcotics.
- Whether the mandatory provisions of Sections 52‑A and 57 of the NDPS Act have been complied with.
- Whether the applicant’s prior NDPS convictions preclude the grant of bail.
- Whether the principles laid down in Union of India v. Shiv Shanker Kesari and Nadeem Ahmad v. State of West Bengal are applicable to the present bail application.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 483
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (B.N.S.S.) — s. 351
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act — s. 20, 37, 52-A, 57, 8
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- commercial quantity
- mandatory provisions
- prior convictions
- Section 37 NDPS
- Supreme Court precedent
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11221 of 2026
Nitai Sarkar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anurag Vajpeyi, Prateek Dwivedi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 69
HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.
1. Heard Sri Anurag Vajpeyi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri O.P. Singh,
learned AGA for the State-respondents and perused the record.
2. The present bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023, has been filed on behalf of applicant with a prayer to release him on
bail in Case Crime No. 513 of 2025 under Section 8/20 NDPS Act and 317(5) BNS
registered at Police Station Phase-I, NOIDA, District Gautam Budh Nagar during
pendency of the trial.
3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has been
falsely implicated in this case and he has been languishing in jail since 04.2.2025. It is
further submitted that 64 kg of Ganja is said to have been recovered from the
possession of the applicant and mandatory provisions of Sections 52-A and 57 of
NDPS Act have not been complied with. It is further submitted that applicant has
criminal history of five cases relating to NDPS Act which has been explained in the
memo of application. It is also submitted that the applicant undertakes that he will not
misuse the liberty, if granted. It has also been pointed out that in the wake of heavy
pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.
4. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the
applicant and submits that mandatory provisions of Sections 52-A and 57 of NDPS
Act have been complied with and the alleged recovered Ganja comes within the
purview of commercial quantity. He further submits that applicant is a resident of
West Bengal.
5. 64 kg of Ganja is said to have been recovered from the possession of the applicant
and it is submitted that mandatory provisions of Sections 52-A and 57 of NDPS Act
have not been complied with. Applicant has criminal history of five cases relating to
NDPS Act which has been explained in the memo of application.
6. Upon considering the totality of facts, nature and evidence reflected from record,
BAIL No. 11221 of 2026
2
taking into consideration the provision of Section 37 of the NDPS Act and in view of
the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India vs. Shiv Shanker
Kesari, 2007 (7) SCC 798 and Nadeem Ahmad vs. State of West Bengal 2025
LawSuit (SC) 1134 (2025 INSC 993), without expressing any opinion on merits of
the case, I find it to be a fit case for bail. Hence, the present bail application is
ALLOWED.
7. Let the applicant Nitai Sarkar involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on
bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties (one of the
surety must be a local resident) each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court
concerned with the following conditions :-
(i) 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.
(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.
(iii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates
fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement
under Section 351 of B.N.S.S.
(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 the trial
court.
(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either
personally or through his counsel.
8. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail.
9. It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the purpose of
determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression
on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its
independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in
this order.
April 20, 2026
Madhurima
(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
MADHURIMA GARG
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…