Allahabad High Court
SATENDRA @ PAPPUversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
Holding
The court held that bail is appropriate despite the serious nature of the charges, owing to procedural irregularities and the principles laid down in Section 37 NDPS Act and relevant precedent.
Summary
Satendra @ Pappu was arrested for alleged possession of 21.10 kg of ganja, a country‑made pistol and cartridges, and charged under Sections 109(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (B.N.S.), Sections 3, 25 and 28 of the Arms Act and Sections 8, 20 of the NDPS Act. He filed a bail application under Section 483 of the B.N.S., claiming innocence and alleging procedural lapses: the contraband was not weighed separately, samples were not taken or certified as required by Rules 9‑11 of the relevant notification, and Section 52‑A of the NDPS Act was not complied with. The State opposed bail, asserting that the mandatory provisions were satisfied. The High Court, after considering the totality of facts, the provisions of Section 37 NDPS Act and precedent (Nadeem Ahmad v. State of West Bengal 2025 and Union of India v. Shiv Shanker Kesari 2007), held that the case was fit for bail and ordered release on a personal bond with conditions. The order expressly limited its scope to the bail application and did not comment on the merits of the trial.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted under Section 483 B.N.S. for offences punishable under the NDPS Act and Arms Act.
- Whether non‑compliance with Section 52‑A NDPS Act and the sample‑certification rules warrants the grant of bail.
- Whether the seriousness of the alleged offences precludes bail.
- Whether procedural irregularities affect the right to bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25, 28, 3
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 109(1), 483
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act — s. 20, 37, 52-A, 8
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- Arms Act
- procedural lapse
- Section 52-A
- Section 37
- high court
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14009 of 2026
Satendra @ Pappu
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Kulveer Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 69
HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.
1. Heard Shri Kulveer Singh, 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.110 of 2026, under
Sections 109(1) of B.N.S. and Sections 3/25/28 of Arms Act and Section
8/20 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, registered at
Police Station Budhana, District Muzaffarnagar, 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 21.10 Kg of ganja and one
country made pistol, some live and empty cartridges are said to have been
recovered from the possessions of the applicant. It is further submitted
that the separate weight of the contraband has not been taken and 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. It is further submitted that no
police personnel has received any firearm injury in the alleged incident on
the contrary, the applicant has received injury of firearm on his leg. The
BAIL No. 14009 of 2026
2
applicant is languishing in jail since 10.03.2026, 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 commercial quantity
of ganja is said to have been recovered from the possession of the
applicant and it is submitted that the mandatory provisions of Section 52-
A N.D.P.S. Act and Section 105 of BNSS have also been complied with.
5. As per allegations in the first information report, 21.10 Kg of ganja and
one country made pistol, some live and empty cartridges are said to have
been recovered from the possessions of the applicant. It is further
submitted that the separate weight of the contraband has not been taken
and 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 and no police
personnel has received any firearm injury in the alleged incident on the
contrary, the applicant has received injury of firearm on his leg. The
applicant is languishing in jail since 10.03.2026.
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- Satendra @ Pappu 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,
BAIL No. 14009 of 2026
3
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.
(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)
May 5, 2026
RKM
Digitally signed by :-
RAJESH KUMAR MAURYA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…