Allahabad High Court
NARENDRA KUMAR @ NARESH KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P. THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HOME, GOVERNMENT OF U.P. AT LUCKNOW
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
Since the applicant is not named in the FIR and the only allegation against him stems from an uncorroborated confessional statement of a co‑accused, which is barred by the Supreme Court’s decision in Tofan Singh, the court held that prima facie the applicant is entitled to bail.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Narendra Kumar (also known as Naresh Kumar) in a NDPS case (Crime No. 0151 of 2026) where he was not named in the FIR but was mentioned in the confessional statement of co‑accused Pannalal Lodhi under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. The applicant argued that such a statement is inadmissible as per the Supreme Court’s ruling in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu and that there is no other evidence linking him to the alleged offence. The State opposed bail, contending the seriousness of the offence and the recovery of a large quantity of contraband. The Court, after evaluating the material and noting the lack of direct evidence against the applicant, held that prima facie he is entitled to bail. Accordingly, the bail application was allowed subject to a personal bond, two sureties, and standard conditions of non‑tampering with evidence and appearance before the trial court.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted when the accused is implicated solely through a co‑accused's confessional statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act.
- Whether the Supreme Court decision in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu renders such confessional statements inadmissible for bail considerations.
- Whether the absence of the accused's name in the FIR and lack of other corroborative evidence justify the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act — s. 20, 29, 60, 67, 8
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- confessional statement
- co‑accused
- prima facie evidence
- Supreme Court precedent
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32915 of 2026
Narendra Kumar @ Naresh Kumar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. Through Its Principal Secretary
Home, Government Of U.P. At Lucknow .....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Brijesh Kumar Prajapati, Maheshwari
Prasad Srivastava, Shashi Kant Singh,
Surendra Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 68
(Sr. No.19 out of 291)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Brijesh Kumar Prajapati, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri
Arun Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material
placed on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.0151 of 2026, under Sections 8,
20, 29, 60 N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station Naseerpur, District Firozabad, during
the pendency of trial.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is not
named in the FIR. His name has come up in the confessional statement of
the co-accused, Pannalal Lodhi, recorded under Section 67 of the N.D.P.S.
Act. The said statement is hit by the judgment of the Supreme Court in
Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 882. There is
no other evidence against the applicant. It is true that a heavy quantity of
contraband was recovered from the co-accused, Pannalal Lodhi, but the
applicant has nothing to do with the said recovery. The applicant has no
criminal history and is in jail since 19.07.2026. He undertakes to cooperate
with the trial and not misuse the liberty of bail.
5. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application but the
submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant could not be
BAIL No. 32915 of 2026
2
disputed.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into
consideration the fact that the name of the applicant has come up in the
confessional statement of the co-accused, and without expressing any
opinion on the merits of the case, prima-facie the Court is of the view that
the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
7. Let the applicant- Narendra Kumar @ Naresh Kumar, be released on
bail in the aforementioned case crime on furnishing a personal bond and two
sureties to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to verification of
sureties, with the conditions that he shall not tamper with evidence or
intimidate witnesses and shall appear before the trial court as required.
8. Breach of any condition shall entail cancellation of bail. The observations
herein shall not affect the trial on merits.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
September 16, 2026
(Ravi Kant)
Digitally signed by :-
RAVI KANT
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…