Allahabad High Court
PINKOO @ CHUNNU KANJADversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
Holding
The Court held that the applicant is entitled to bail.
Summary
The High Court of Allahabad considered a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, on behalf of Pinkoo @ Chunnu Kanjad who was arrested in an NDNDPS case (Section 8/20) for allegedly possessing eight kilograms of ganja, a quantity below the commercial threshold. The applicant contended that the mandatory provisions of Sections 50 and 52‑A of the NDPS Act were not complied with because proper sample collection and judicial certification were absent, and argued that he was falsely implicated and had been in custody since 31 March 2026. The State argued that all procedural requirements had been met. Relying on Section 37 of the NDPS Act and precedents set by Union of India v. Shiv Shanker Kesari (2007), Nadeem Ahmad v. State of West Bengal (2025) and Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India (2024), the Court, without commenting on the merits, found the case suitable for bail and ordered release on a personal bond of Rs 50,000 with two sureties and several conditions. The order expressly limited its effect to the bail application and did not prejudice the trial court’s future findings.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted under Section 483 B.N.S.S. for an NDPS offence when the seized quantity is below commercial limits and procedural lapses in sample collection exist
- Whether the mandatory provisions of Sections 50 and 52‑A of the NDPS Act were complied with in the present investigation
- Whether the applicant is entitled to bail despite the pendency of trial
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 483
- B.N.S.S. — s. 351
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act — s. 20, 37, 50, 52-A, 8
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- Section 37
- Section 483 B.N.S.S.
- sample collection
- commercial quantity
- procedural lapse
- pre‑trial detention
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15081 of 2026
Pinkoo @ Chunnu Kanjad
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Agni Pal Singh, Pratima Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 69
HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.
1. Heard Sri Agni Pal Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Manoj Gautam,
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. 120 of 2026 under Section 8/20 NDPS Act, registered at Police
Station Maharajpur, District Kanpur Nagar during pendency of the trial.
3. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has been
falsely implicated in this case and eight kilogram of Ganja is said to have been
recovered from the possession of the applicant which is much below the commercial
quantity. It is further submitted that mandatory provisions of sections 50 and 52-A of
NDPS Act have not been complied with as samples have not been collected in
accordance with Rules 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the Rules published by the Union of India in
the official gazette nor the same have been certified by any Judicial Magistrate. It is
further submitted that applicant is languishing in jail since 31.3.2026. 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 NDPS Act have been complied
with.
5. Eight kilogram of Ganja which is much below the commercial quantity is said to
have been recovered from the possession of the applicant. It is submitted that
mandatory provisions of sections 50 and 52-A of NDPS Act have not been complied
with as samples have not been collected in accordance with Rules 8, 9, 10 and 11 of
the Rules published by the Union of India in the official gazette nor the same have
been certified by any Judicial Magistrate.
BAIL No. 15081 of 2026
2
6. Upon considering the totality of facts, nature and evidence reflected from record,
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), Pankaj Bansal vs. Union of India (2024) 7 SCC 576
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 Pinkoo @ Chunnu Kanjad involved in the aforesaid case crime
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 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.
May 5, 2026
Madhurima
(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
MADHURIMA GARG
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…