Allahabad High Court
SONAM DEVIversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
Holding
The court held that the applicant is entitled to bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 despite the alleged non‑compliance with Section 52‑A of the NDPS Act.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for Sonam Devi, who was arrested in a NDNDPS case (Sections 8/20) involving 32.1 kg of ganja. The applicant argued that the mandatory sampling provisions of Section 52‑A of the NDPS Act were not complied with and pointed to the bail granted to a co‑accused. The State contended that all procedural requirements, including videography under Section 105 of the B.N.S.S., had been satisfied. Relying on the Supreme Court precedents Union of India v. Shiv Shanker Kesari (2007) and Nadeem Ahmad v. State of West Bengal (2025), the Court held that the case was suitable for bail despite the alleged procedural lapses. Consequently, the bail application was allowed subject to a personal bond and several conditions, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the underlying offence.
Issues considered
- Whether the mandatory provisions of Section 52‑A of the NDPS Act regarding sample collection were complied with.
- Whether bail can be granted under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in an NDPS case.
- Whether the bail granted to a co‑accused influences the applicant's right to bail.
- Whether the Supreme Court precedents cited support the grant of bail in the present circumstances.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 483
- B.N.S.S. — s. 105, 351
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act — s. 20, 37, 52-A, 8
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- Section 52-A
- sample collection
- court precedent
- trial pendency
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33336 of 2025
Sonam Devi
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anjani Kumar Raghuvanshi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 69
HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.
1. Heard Sri Pawan Kumar, Advocate, holding brief of Sri A.K. Raghuvanshi, learned
counsel for the applicant, Sri Shiv Dutt Shukla, 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 her on bail
in Case Crime No. 98 of 2025 under Section 8/20 NDPS Act, registered at Police
Station G.R.P., District Moradabad during pendency of the trial.
3. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that co-accused Nirmal Ram
has been granted bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 05.1.2026
passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 33511 of 2025. It is further submitted that
32.100 kg of Ganja is said to have been recovered from one trolley bag and one
bagpack, however, mandatory provisions of sections 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 any Judicial Magistrate. It is further submitted that
applicant is languishing in jail since 08.7.2025 and she undertakes that she 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 videography has also been done in accordance with section 105 BNSS.
5. As per the FIR, 32.100 kg of Ganja is said to have been recovered from one trolley
bag and one bagpack, however, it is submitted that mandatory provisions of sections
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 any Judicial Magistrate.
BAIL No. 33336 of 2025
2
Co-accused Nirmal Ram has been granted bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court
and applicant is languishing in jail since 08.7.2025.
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 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 Sonam Devi involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on
bail on her 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 her 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…