Allahabad High Court
PRAMOD GOSWAMIversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
Holding
The court held that bail is appropriate in the present case despite the alleged procedural lapses and the commercial quantity of the narcotic.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, on behalf of Pramod Goswami, who is accused under Sections 8, 20, 29 and 60 of the NDPS Act for alleged possession of 191.6 kg of ganja recovered from a truck where he was seated behind the driver. The applicant argued that co‑accused had been granted bail, that mandatory provisions of Section 52‑A of the NDPS Act regarding sample collection were not complied with, and that he had been in custody since 10 May 2025. The State contended that the statutory requirements were met and that the quantity involved was well above the commercial threshold. Relying on Section 37 of the NDPS Act and the Supreme Court’s decision in Union of India v. Shiv Shanker Kesari (2007), the Court found the case suitable for bail without expressing a view on the merits. Accordingly, the bail application was allowed subject to a personal bond, sureties and strict conditions to prevent tampering with evidence or intimidation of witnesses.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted when the mandatory provisions of Section 52‑A of the NDPS Act concerning sample collection have allegedly not been complied with
- Whether the large quantity of narcotic (191.6 kg) constitutes a commercial quantity that defeats the grant of bail
- Whether the precedent set in Union of India v. Shiv Shanker Kesari (2007) is applicable to the present bail application
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 483
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act — s. 20, 29, 37, 52-A, 60, 8
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- commercial quantity
- Section 52-A
- sample collection
- Section 37
- preliminary hearing
- court precedent
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29515 of 2025
Pramod Goswami
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ishan Deo Giri, Sandeep Pandey, Satendra
Singh, Saurabh Pandey, Saurabh Yadav,
Suresh Chandra Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 69
HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.
1. Heard Sri Saurabh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri B.P. Maurya,
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. 173 of 2025 under Section 8/20/29/60 NDPS Act, registered at
Police Station Trans Yamuna, District Agra during pendency of the trial.
3. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that similarly placed co-
accused Deepu Goswami has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated
06.5.2026 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.28931 of 2025. It is further
submitted that co-accused Monu Sharma has also been enlarged on bail by this Court
vide order dated 06.5.2026 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.37444 of 2025. It
is further submitted that applicant was found sitting behind the driver seat in the truck
from which 191.6 kg of ganja is said to have been recovered. It is further submitted
that mandatory provisions of section 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 and certificate of the
Magistrate has been obtained on a printed proforma. It is further submitted that
applicant is languishing in jail since 10.5.2025 and he 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 and the contraband recovered is much above the commercial quantity.
5. As per the FIR, 191.6 kg of ganja is said to have been recovered from a truck and
applicant is said to have been found sitting behind the driver seat of the said vehicle.
BAIL No. 29515 of 2025
2
It is submitted hat mandatory provisions of section 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 and the
same has not been certified by a Judicial Magistrate. Annexure No.2 filed by the
applicant shows that the recovery memo is on printed form and the applicant is in jail
since 10.5.2025.
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 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 Pramod Goswami 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 7, 2026
Madhurima
(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
MADHURIMA GARG
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…