Allahabad High Court
KANHAIYA LAL SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
Bail was denied as the case did not satisfy the criteria for grant under the NDPS Act given compliance with Section 52-A and the large quantity of contraband.
Summary
Kanhaiya Lal Singh applied for bail in a NDPS case (Crime No.744 of 2025) alleging innocence and claiming no inventory under Section 52-A, while the main accused Vinod Kumar had already been released on bail. The State opposed, presenting a forensic report that 195 kg of ganja was recovered from a truck driven by the applicant, a quantity well above the commercial threshold, and asserted compliance with Section 52-A. The court examined the material, noting the large quantity of contraband and the statutory compliance, and concluded that the applicant did not merit bail. Consequently, the bail application was rejected as devoid of merit. The court also directed that the trial proceed expeditiously.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted in an NDPS case when Section 52-A compliance is established and the seized quantity exceeds commercial limits.
- Whether the applicant's claim of innocence and lack of prior criminal record justify bail despite the evidence.
- Whether the absence of an inventory, if any, affects the bail decision under the NDPS Act.
Legislation cited
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 20, 29, 52-A, 60, 8
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- Section 52-A
- commercial quantity
- forensic report
- trial delay
- drug trafficking
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3256 of 2026
Kanhaiya Lal Singh
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Kartikey Singh, Siddharth Shukla,
Somit Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 68
(Sr. No.67 out of 185)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised. Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Somit Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri R.P. Patel,
learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material placed on
record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.744 of 2025, under Section
8/20/29/60 of The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985,
Police Station- Kosi Kalan, District Mathura, during the pendency of trial.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is
absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with
a view to cause unnecessary harassment and to victimize him. He has
nothing to do with the said offence. The main accused person, Vinod Kumar,
who was the supplier of the said contraband, has been enlarged on bail by
the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 06.04.2026 passed in
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.9787 of 2026. No inventory as per the
provision of Section 52-A of the N.D.P.S. Act is on record and there being
no compliance, the applicant is entitled to bail. The applicant is languishing
in jail since 08.12.2025, as such, the period of incarceration is about ten
months and the trial is not moving ahead. There is no criminal history of the
applicant. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the
liberty of bail.
BAIL No. 3256 of 2026
2
5. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application on the
ground that there is compliance with Section 52-A of the N.D.P.S. Act. Even
the forensic report has come up, which indicates that the said contraband
was ganja, and a heavy quantity of ganja was recovered from a truck, which
was being driven by the applicant. The said contraband was 195 kg., which
is much above the commercial quantity, as such, the applicant is not entitled
to bail.
6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration
the forensic report and the fact that there is compliance of the mandatory
provisions of Section 52-A of the N.D.P.S. Act, I do not find it a fit case for
grant of bail to the applicant. The bail application is found devoid of merits
and is, accordingly, rejected.
7. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts
brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the
said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.
8. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial
court be decided expeditiously, as early as possible, in accordance with law,
if there is no legal impediment.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
September 8, 2026
(Ravi Kant)
Digitally signed by :-
RAVI KANT
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…