Allahabad High Court
BACHCHA BHARTEEY @ KARAN KUMAR BHARTIYAversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- VIVEK VARMA
Holding
The court held that the applicant is entitled to bail as the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act were not complied with and there is no reasonable apprehension of tampering or intimidation.
Summary
The applicant, Bachcha Bharteey @ Karan Kumar Bhartiya, filed a bail application under Section 483 of the Criminal Procedure Code in a case registered under Sections 8 and 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, alleging that the seizure of 106.15 g of Alprazolam was false and that mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act were not complied with. The applicant contended that there was no independent witness to the recovery, the weighing was inaccurate, and the inventory was not certified by a magistrate. The State opposed bail but could not refute these points. The court, after reviewing the record, found prima facie that the mandatory provisions (Sections 42, 50, 51, and 52‑A of the NDPS Act) were indeed not complied with and that there was no risk of evidence tampering or witness intimidation. Consequently, the court granted bail, directing the applicant to furnish a personal bond and two sureties, and imposed conditions of appearance, non‑tampering, and non‑pressurisation of witnesses.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted when mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act (Sections 42, 50, 51, 52‑A) have not been complied with.
- Whether the lack of an independent witness and uncertified inventory justifies bail.
- Whether there is a reasonable apprehension of evidence tampering, witness intimidation, or trial delay that would preclude bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 483
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 21, 42, 50, 51, 52-A, 8
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- mandatory provisions
- false recovery
- evidence tampering
- sureties
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14417 of 2026
Bachcha Bharteey @ Karan Kumar Bhartiya
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Jai Singh Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 64
HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.
1. Learned AGA for the State submits that the instructions have been
received and he has no objection in case the bail application is decided on
merits.
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Anupam Anand,
learned brief holder for the State-opposite party.
3. The instant bail application, under Section 483 BNSS, has been filed
with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.173 of
2026, under Section 8/21 N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station- Naini, District
Prayagraj during the pendency of trial.
4. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely
implicated in the present case. False recovery of 106.15 gm. Alprazolam
powder has been shown from the possession of the applicant. There is no
independent witness to the recovery. The alleged contraband was weighed
along with the packing material. The police has deliberately shown the
quantity of the alleged narcotics substance marginally higher in order to add
gravity to the offence. No accurate scientific instruments were used for
weighment. The mandatory provisions of Sections 42, 50, 51 and 52-A of
the N.D.P.S. Act have not been complied with. Criminal history of the
applicant has been explained in para 15 of the affidavit. The applicant is in
jail since 06.04.2026 and in case, he is enlarged on bail, he will not
misuse the said liberty.
BAIL No. 14417 of 2026
2
5. Learned brief holder for the State has opposed the prayer for bail but
could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.
6. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, I
am of the prima facie view that the mandatory provisions of Sections 42,
50, 51 and 52-A of N.D.P.S. Act have not been complied with. There is
no independent witness to the recovery. Inventory of the seized
contraband was not duly certified by the Magistrate. Apart from the
instant case, the applicant is not involved in any case under the NDPS
Act, as such there are reasonable ground to believe that the applicant shall
not indulge himself in other cases of similar nature. Moreover, the
applicant has remained confined for almost one month and after
submission of the charge-sheet there is no hope of early conclusion of
trial, more so when no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the
fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either
tamper with the evidence or delay the trial or intimidate the witness,
without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the
applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
7. Let the applicant Bachcha Bharteey @ Karan Kumar Bhartiya
involved in the aforesaid case crime 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; and,
(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.
8. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall
be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.
(Vivek Varma,J.)
May 6, 2026
Lbm/-
Digitally signed by :-
LAL BAHADUR MAURYA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…