Allahabad High Court

MANNI PANCHALversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 19 January 2026
Bench: ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA

Holding

The court held that bail could not be granted as prima facie involvement was established and there was a risk of tampering with evidence.

Summary

The Allahabad High Court examined a bail application filed under Section 483 of the CrPC on behalf of Manni Panchal, who was charged under Sections 8A(c), 22(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act. The applicant contended that no narcotic substances were recovered from him, that the prosecution lacked a chemical analyst's report, and that he was falsely implicated. The State countered that narcotics were seized from the house of a co‑accused, that a co‑accused’s confession linked Panchal to the drug‑smuggling operation, and that granting bail could lead to tampering with evidence. The Court held that prima facie evidence of involvement existed and that the risk of interference with the investigation outweighed the applicant’s arguments. Accordingly, the bail application was rejected, with the Court noting that its observations were confined to the bail decision and would not affect the trial.

Issues considered

Whether bail can be granted to the accused under Section 483 CrPC in an NDPS case involving alleged drug trafficking.
Whether the prosecution complied with the procedural requirements of the NDPS Act, such as producing a chemical analysis report.
Whether there is prima facie evidence establishing the accused's involvement in the alleged offence.
Whether the risk of evidence tampering or intimidation justifies the denial of bail.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 483
NDPS Act — s. 22(c), 29, 8A(c)

Subjects

bail
NDPS Act
drug trafficking
prima facie evidence
evidence tampering
judicial custody

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 23335 of 2025

Manni Panchal
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mohammad Wadood, Mohd. Samiuzzaman
Khan, Shivam Tiwari
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 68
HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.

Heard Shri Mohammad Wadood, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Shashank
Singh, Brief Holder for the State and perused the record of the case.

The present bail application under Section 483 B.N.S.S. has been filed on behalf of
applicant, Manni Panchal, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 24
of 2025, under Section 8A(c)/22(c)/29 N.D.P.S Act, Police Station - Kotwali, Nagar,
District Saharanpur.

Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that about 4100 Intoxicated Injection,
62,400 Intoxicated Capsules and, 6600 Intoxicated Piles are alleged to have been
recovered from the possession of the applicant. In fact no such recovery was effected
from the applicant. It is further submitted that since such recovery is not supported by
independent witness, possibility of his false implication in the crime cannot be ruled
out. It is next contended that in the present case the prosecution has failed to follow
the provisions of N.D.P.S. Act. There is no report of chemical analyst. It is also argued
that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present
crime with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and victimize him. The applicant,
who is in jail since 28.05.2025 having no criminal history to his credit, deserves to be
released on bail. In case the applicant is released on bail he will not misuse the liberty
of bail.

Learned A.G.A for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and he has
submitted that the during the personal search of co-accused Naveen Saini, some
narcotic articles i.e. tablets, capsules/injections etc. have been recovered from the
possession of the house of applicant and he has committed the crime of smuggling
narcotic substances in connivance with co-accused. The applicant is named in the
F.I.R. The applicant along with co-accused persons committed the crime of drug
trafficking. In his confessional statement, the co-accused Naveen Saini admitted the
fact about receiving drugs from the applicant and co-accused Harish Saini, trading in
narcotic tablets, injections and capsules and making substantial profits by purchasing
BAIL No. 23335 of 2025
2

the drugs at Maximum Retail Price rates and was selling them at approximately one
and half times the Maximum Retail Price. Learned A.G.A has further submitted that
on the basis of sufficient reliable evidences, statements of informant and witnesses a
charge-sheet has been submitted against the present applicant and co-accused Naveen
Saini.
Learned A.G.A for the State has lastly submitted that the commission of offenses-in-
question, the applicant is rightly being detained in judicial custody, if the applicant is
granted bail, there is a chance to tampering of evidence and threatening them,
therefore, the instant bail application is devoid of merit and the same is liable to be
cancelled.

In the light of the facts and circumstances of the present case, it would be
inappropriate to discuss the evidence in depth at this stage because it is likely to
influence the trial of the accused. But, from the perusal of the evidences, collected
during investigation so far, prima facie, the involvement of the accused in the present
case cannot be ruled out. No reason is found to falsely implicate the applicant/accused.
Therefore, there is no good ground to release the applicant-accused on bail at this
stage. All the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant pertain to the
merits of the case and the same cannot be considered while considering application for
grant of bail. This court is unable to form an opinion at this stage that the accused has
not committed an offence.

In the ultimate conclusion, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, gravity
of the offence, severity of punishment, in my opinion, no case for bail is made out.
Accordingly, the bail application is hereby rejected.

It is clarified that the observations made regarding the bail application is limited to the
decision of the bail application and any observations made herein shall not effect the
trial of the case.

January 20, 2026
Vinod.
(Ashutosh Srivastava, J.)

Digitally signed by :-
VINOD KUMAR JAISWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…