PAPPU @ MAHENDRAversusSTATE OF U.P.

                HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

          CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13924 of 2026

Pappu @ Mahendra
                                                                        .....Applicant(s)
                                        Versus
State of U.P.
                                                                   .....Opposite Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)                 :   Brijesh Kumar Pandey, Grijesh Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)            :   G.A.

Court No. - 69
                    HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.

1. Heard Shri Brijesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, and Shri B.P.
Maurya, 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. 78 of 2026, under Section 8/20 of Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, registered at Police Station Farah, District Mathura,
during pendency of the trial.

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is
innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case due to ulterior motive. It is
further submitted that 29.760 Kg of ganja is said to have been recovered from the joint
possession of the applicant and co-accused Gopal. It is further submitted that the
samples have not been taken in accordance with the Rules 9,10 and 11 of the
notification published by the Union of India in the official gazette and the samples
have not been certified by the learned Judicial Magistrate. It is further submitted that
the mandatory provisions of Sections 50 and 52-A of N.D.P.S. Act have not been
complied with. The applicant is languishing in jail since 11.03.2026, 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. Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant and it has
been submitted by him that the alleged recovery has not been made from the
possession of the applicant rather the same has been made from a motorcycle and
therefore, the provisions of Section 50 N.D.P.S. Act shall not be applied and the
samples have been taken in accordance with the Rules 9,10 and 11 of the notification
published by the Union of India in the official gazette.

5. As per allegations in the first information report, 29.760 Kg of ganja is said to have
been recovered from the joint possession of the applicant and co-accused Gopal. It is
                                                                 BAIL No. 13924 of 2026
                                     2

further submitted that the samples have not been taken in accordance with the Rules
9,10 and 11 of the notification published by the Union of India in the official gazette
and the samples have not been certified by the learned Judicial Magistrate. It is further
submitted that the mandatory provisions of Section 52-A of N.D.P.S. Act have not
been complied with. The applicant is languishing in jail since 11.03.2026.

6. Upon considering the totality of facts, nature and the evidence reflected from record
and also taking into consideration the provision of Section 37 of N.D.P.S. Act and the
law laid down in the case of Nadeem Ahmad Vs. State of West Bengal 2025
LawSuit (SC) 1134 (2025) INSC 993) and Union of India vs Shiv Shanker Kesari
(2007) 7 SCC 798 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- Pappu @ Mahendra involved in the aforesaid case crime shall
be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties
each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned :-

(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.




May 5, 2026
RKM
                                        (Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
RAJESH KUMAR MAURYA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad