Allahabad High Court
MANISH KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The Court held that bail should be granted on a prima facie basis despite the pending NDPS trial.
Summary
Manish Kumar was arrested in Mathura for allegedly possessing 13.670 kg of ganja, alleged under Sections 8 and 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985. The applicant contended that he was falsely implicated, that the seized quantity was below the commercial threshold, and that the prosecution had not produced a chemical analyst's report nor complied with the mandatory provisions of Section 52-A of the NDPS Act. The State opposed bail, arguing the seriousness of the offence. The Court examined the record, noted the absence of a forensic report and the non‑compliance with Section 52-A, and considered the applicant's clean criminal record and the fact that he had been in custody since 31 July 2026. Finding that, on a prima facie basis, the case was suitable for bail, the Court ordered his release on personal bond and two sureties with standard conditions. The order expressly stated that the bail decision would not prejudice the trial judge’s independent assessment of the evidence.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted in an NDPS case where the alleged quantity is below commercial threshold and mandatory procedural requirements (Section 52-A) have not been complied with
- Whether the absence of a chemical analyst's report justifies bail
- Whether the applicant's claim of false implication and lack of prior criminal record affect the bail decision
Legislation cited
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 20, 52-A, 8
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- Section 52-A
- quantity below commercial threshold
- chemical analysis report
- false implication
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30355 of 2026
Manish Kumar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mohd Mohiuddin Siddiqui
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 68
(Sl. No. 54 out of 185)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Mohd Mohiuddin Siddiqui, learned counsel for the applicant,
Sri R.P. Singh, learned State Law Officer and perused the material placed on
record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 300 of 2026, under Section 8/20
of The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police
Station- Farah, District -Mathura, during the pendency of trial.
4. As per the allegations of the FIR, 13.670 kg of ganja is stated to have been
recovered from the conscious possession of applicant by the police.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is
absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case by
the police to show good work. The contraband recovered from the
possession of the applicant is below commercial quantity. There is no report
of the chemical analyst to corroborate the allegations that the alleged
contraband is ganja. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that there is
no compliance of mandatory provision of Section 52-A of the N.D.P.S. Act.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that there is no criminal
history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 31.7.2026.
In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of
bail.
BAIL No. 30355 of 2026
2
7. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application.
8. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusal of record and
considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment, there being
no compliance of mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act; there being no
report of the chemical analyst to corroborate the allegations against the
applicant, at this stage without commenting on the merits of the case, prima
facie, I find it a fit case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
9. Let the applicant- Manish Kumar, who is involved in aforementioned
case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two
sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned
subject to verification of sureties, with the condition that he shall not tamper
with evidence or intimidate witnesses and shall appear before the trial court
as required.
10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail.
11. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant
shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent
opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
September 8, 2026
Shalini
Digitally signed by :-
SHALINI JAISWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…