Allahabad High Court
PRABHATversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
Holding
The Court held that bail should be granted to the applicant.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, on behalf of Prabhat, who is accused under Sections 8 and 20 of the NDPS Act for the alleged recovery of 63.3 kg of ganja from a truck. The applicant argued that the mandatory provisions of Section 52-A of the NDPS Act were not complied with because samples were not collected as per the prescribed rules and that his role as a cleaner was similar to a co‑accused who had already been granted bail. The State contended that all procedural requirements, including videographic evidence, had been satisfied. The Court examined the nature of the offence, the pendency of the trial, and relevant precedents, notably Union of India v. Shiv Shanker Kesari and Nadeem Ahmad v. State of West Bengal, and concluded that the case was suitable for bail. Accordingly, the bail application was allowed subject to a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties and several conditions, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita when the mandatory provisions of Section 52-A of the NDPS Act have allegedly not been complied with.
- Whether the applicant's role as a cleaner is distinguishable from the co‑accused who has already been released on bail.
- Whether the delay and pendency of the trial justify the grant of bail.
- Whether compliance with evidentiary requirements such as videography affects the bail decision.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 483
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (B.N.S.S.) — s. 351
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act — s. 20, 37, 52-A, 8
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- Section 52-A
- procedural compliance
- trial pendency
- high court
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33315 of 2025
Prabhat
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Lalit Kumar Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 69
HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.
1. Heard Sri Lalit Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri B.P.
Singh, 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. 762 of 2024 under Section 8/20
NDPS Act, registered at Police Station Kosikalan, District Mathura during
pendency of the trial.
3. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that co-accused
Sunder has already been enlarged on bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court vide order dated 19.1.2026 passed in Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail
Application No.34184 of 2025 and role of the applicant is not
distinguishable from the role of aforesaid co-accused who has been found to
be driver of the vehicle whereas applicant is cleaner of the said vehicle from
which 63.3 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 nor the same have been certified by any Judicial Magistrate. It is also
submitted that applicant is in jail since 20.12.2024 and there is no likelihood
of the trial being concluded in near future. It is further submitted that
applicant has criminal history of one case pertaining to NDPS Act 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
BAIL No. 33315 of 2025
2
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 videography of the alleged recovery has also been
made in accordance with section 105 BNSS.
5. As per the FIR, 63.3 kg of Ganja is said to have been recovered from a
truck which was being driven by co-accused Sunder and applicant is said to
be the cleaner of the said truck. Co-accused Sunder has already been
enlarged on bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. It is 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 nor the same have been certified by any Judicial Magistrate.
Applicant is in jail since 20.12.2024.
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 Nadeem Ahmad vs.
State of West Bengal 2025 LawSuit (SC) 1134 (2025 INSC 993) 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 Prabhat 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.
BAIL No. 33315 of 2025
3
(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 5, 2026
Madhurima
(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
MADHURIMA GARG
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…