Allahabad High Court
JAIMATI KUMARI DEVIversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
Holding
The Court held that the applicant is entitled to bail.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, on behalf of Jaimati Kumari Devi, who was charged under Sections 8, 18 and 29 of the NDPS Act for alleged possession of 1.645 kg of opium, a quantity below the commercial threshold. The applicant contended that the mandatory provisions of Section 52-A of the NDPS Act were not complied with because the seized samples were not taken as per Rules 9, 10 and 11 and were not certified by the magistrate. The State argued that the procedural requirements of Sections 50 and 52-A had been satisfied and highlighted the applicant's Nepalese citizenship. Relying on Section 37 of the NDPS Act and the Supreme Court precedents in Nadeem Ahmed v. State of West Bengal (2025) and Union of India v. Shiv Shanker Kesari (2007), the Court held that the case was suitable for bail without expressing any view on the merits. Consequently, the bail application was allowed subject to a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties and several conditions aimed at preventing interference with the trial.
Issues considered
- Whether the mandatory provisions of Section 52-A of the NDPS Act concerning sample collection and certification were complied with.
- Whether the applicant, a foreign national, is entitled to bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
- Whether the quantity of opium alleged to be possessed falls below the commercial quantity, justifying bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 483
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act — s. 18, 29, 37, 50, 52-A, 8
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- opium possession
- Section 52-A compliance
- foreign national
- Section 37 NDPS
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15211 of 2026
Jaimati Kumari Devi
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rishabh Shukla, Yogendra Nath Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 69
HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.
1. Heard Sri Rishabh Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and
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 her on bail in Case Crime No.
122 of 2026, , under Section 8/18/29 NDPS Act, registered at
Police Station Sadar Bazar, District Saharanpur, during pendency
of the trial.
3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that
applicant is innocent and she has been falsely implicated in this
case and she has been languishing in jail since1.3.2026. It is
further submitted that as per FIR, 5.099kg of opium is said to have
been recovered from joint possession of four accused persons and
1645gram of opium is said to have been recovered from exclusive
possession of the applicant, which is below the commercial
quantity, however, it is submitted that mandatory provisions of
Section 52-A of NDPS Act have not been complied with as the
samples have not been taken in accordance with the Rules 9, 10
and 11 of the Rules published by the Union of India in the official
gazette and the same have not been certified by the learned
Magistrate. It is also submitted that the applicant undertakes that
BAIL No. 15211 of 2026
2
she 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 it is submitted that mandatory
provisions of Sections 50 and 52-A of NDPS Act have been
complied with. It is further submitted that the applicant is the citizen
of Nepal.
5. As per FIR, 5.099kg of opium is said to have been recovered
from joint possession of four accused persons and 1645gram of
opium is said to have been recovered from exclusive possession of
the applicant, which is below the commercial quantity, however, it
is submitted that mandatory provisions of Section 52-A of NDPS
Act have not been complied with as the samples have not been
taken in accordance with the Rules 9, 10 and 11 of the Rules
published by the Union of India in the official gazette and the same
have not been certified by the learned Magistrate.
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 the NDPS Act and in view of the law laid
down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Nadeem Ahmed vs. State of West
Bengal, 2025 LawSuit (SC) 1134 (2025 INSC 993) 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 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- Jaimati Kumari Devi involved in the aforesaid
case crime be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond
of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties (one of the sureties must be
Indian) 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
BAIL No. 15211 of 2026
3
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.
(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)
May 6, 2026
Abhishek
Digitally signed by :-
ABHISHEK AGRAHARI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…