Allahabad High Court
VINOD KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
Holding
The bail application is allowed.
Summary
The Allahabad High Court considered a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, on behalf of Vinod Kumar, who was arrested in a NDPS case involving alleged recovery of 25 kg of ganja from a car in which he was found. The applicant contended that he was falsely implicated, that the mandatory provisions of Sections 50 and 52-A of the NDPS Act were not complied with, and that the seized samples were not taken or certified as required. The State argued that the statutory requirements had been fulfilled. Relying on Section 37 of the NDPS Act and precedents (Nadeem Ahmad v. State of West Bengal and Union of India v. Shiv Shanker Kesari), the Court, without expressing an opinion on the merits, held that the case was suitable for bail and ordered release on personal bond with conditions. The order expressly limited its effect to the bail application and did not prejudice the trial court’s future judgment.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita when the mandatory provisions of Sections 50 and 52-A of the NDPS Act are alleged to be non‑compliant.
- Whether the procedural requirements for sample collection and certification under the NDPS Act were satisfied.
- Whether the nature of the alleged offence and the evidence (recovery of 25 kg ganja from a car) justify denial of bail.
- Application of Section 37 of the NDPS Act and relevant Supreme Court precedents to the bail decision.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 483
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act — s. 20, 29, 37, 50, 52-A, 8
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- Section 483 B.N.S.S.
- Section 37 NDPS
- mandatory compliance
- sample certification
- presumption of innocence
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16351 of 2026
Vinod Kumar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Vikas Kumar Chaubey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : A.D. Saunders
Court No. - 69
HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.
1. Heard Shri Vikas Kumar Chaubey, learned counsel for the applicant,
and Shri Chandra Shekhar Saran, 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.63 of 2026, under Section
8/20/29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, registered at
Police Station Ahraura, District Mirzapur, 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 25 Kg of ganja is said to have
been recovered from a diggi of the car, in which,the applicant was found
inside the car. It is further submitted that nothing is said to have been
recovered from the possession of the applicant 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. The applicant is languishing in jail since
22.03.2026, 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.
BAIL No. 16351 of 2026
2
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 mandatory provisions
of Sections 50 and 52-A of the N.D.P.S. Act have been complied with.
5. As per allegations in the first information report, 25 Kg of ganja is said
to have been recovered from a diggi of the car, in which, the applicant
was found inside the car. It is further submitted that nothing is said to
have been recovered from the possession of the applicant 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. The applicant is languishing
in jail since 22.03.2026.
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- Vinod Kumar 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)
BAIL No. 16351 of 2026
3
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 14, 2026
RKM
Digitally signed by :-
RAJESH KUMAR MAURYA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…