AJAY KUMAR PANDEYversusSTATE OF U.P.

            HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

      CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 889 of 2026

Ajay Kumar Pandey
                                                                .....Applicant(s)
                                        Versus
State of U.P.
                                                                    .....Opposite
                                                                          Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)            :    Gaurang Dwivedi, Vimlendu Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)       :    G.A.

Court No. - 70
                       HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Purushottam Maurya, learned
counsel for the State-respondent and perused the record.

2. This bail application has been moved on behalf of accused-applicant Ajay
Kumar Pandey @ Annu Maharaj @ Pandey Jee seeking enlargement on bail
in Case Crime No.127 of 2025, under Sections 27A N.D.P.S. Act, Police
Station Kadaura, District Jalaun.

3. Tersely, as per the allegation contained in the FIR two accused persons
were spot arrested from whose possession 56 Kg 268 gram of contraband
ganja, which was kept in Toyota Etios bearing registration no.CG10EL5400,
was recovered and on their confessional statement name of applicant was
surfaced.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the accused-applicant has
not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR and has been falsely
implicated in this case. Applicant is languishing in jail since 16.12.2025. It is
submitted that as per the FIR 56 Kg 268 gram of contraband ganja, which
was kept in Toyota Etios bearing registration no.CG10EL5400, was said to
be recovered from the joint possession of co-accused persons, Divyanshu
Vyas and Shiva Tiwari @ Parth Tiwari and name of applicant was surfaced
on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused persons. It is further
submitted neither any conscious possession of contraband ganja was shown
from the possession of applicant nor any mandatory provisions of Sections
42, 50, 52A, 57 of the N.D.P.S. Act has been complied with by the
                                                                 BAIL No. 889 of 2026
                                      2


competent authority in this case. It is argued that no independent and reliable
witness was present at the time of preparation of recovery memo. It is further
argued that applicant has no criminal antecedents to his credit. It is lastly
submitted that since charge-sheet has already been submitted, therefore,
there is no reasonable possibility of intimidating or pressurizing the
prosecution witnesses. Submission is that the conclusion of trial will take
sufficiently long and there is no likelihood of his fleeing from course of
justice or tampering with evidence in case of release on bail. Hence, bail has
been prayed for.

5. Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the submission of the accused
applicant and submits that 56 Kg 268 gram of ganja, which is above the
commercial quantity, was recovered from the conscious possession of the
two co-accused persons, who assigned the role and involvement of applicant
in their confessional statement. It is submitted that the provisions of Section
50 of the N.D.P.S. Act has been duly complied with by the authority in this
case. It is argued that, in case the applicant is released on bail, he may again
indulge in similar activities and misuse the liberty of bail.

6. Rule 9 and 10 of Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue)
Notification New Delhi, the 23rd December, 2022 reads as under:-

"9. Samples to be drawn in the presence of Magistrate - After application to the
Magistrate under sub-section (2) of section 52A of the Act is made, the Investigating
Officer shall ensure that samples of the seized material are drawn in the presence of
the Magistrate and the same is certified by the magistrate in accordance with the
provisions of the said-sub-section.

10. Drawing the samples - (1) One sample, in duplicate, shall be drawn from each
package and container seized.

(2)When the packages and containers seized together are of identical size and weight
bearing identical marking and the contents of each package give identical results on
colour test by the drugs identification kit, conclusively indicating that the packages
are identical in all respects, the packages and containers may carefully be bunched in
lots of not more than ten packages or containers, and for each such lot of packages
and containers, one sample, in duplicate, shall be drawn:-
                                                                   BAIL No. 889 of 2026
                                     3


Provided that in the case of ganja, poppy straw and hashish (charas) it may be
bunched in lots of not more than fourty packages or containers.

(3) In case of drawing sample from a particular lot, it shall be ensured that
representative sample in equal quantity is taken from each package or container of
that lot and mixed together to make a composite whole from which the samples are
drawn for that lot."

7. Regarding bail application under N.D.P.S. Act, it is pertinent to mention
Section 37 of N.D.P.S. Act, which reads as under:-

"37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.- (1) Notwithstanding anything
contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)-

(a) every offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable;

(b) no person accused of an offence punishable for offences under section 19 or
section 24 or section 27A and also for offences involving commercial quantity shall be
released on bail or on his own bond unless-

(i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for
such release, and

(ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied that
there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and
that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

(2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in clause (b) of sub-section (1) are in
addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or
any other law for the time being in force, on granting of bail."

8. Thus, the conditions which courts have to be cognizant of are that there
are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is "not guilty of such
offence" and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail, "not
guilty" means that it can only be a prima facie determination.

9. In State of Punjab Vs. Baldev Singh 1999 (6) SCC 172 the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that the compliance of Section 50 N.D.P.S. Act is
mandatory.
                                                                   BAIL No. 889 of 2026
                                     4


".....That when an empowered officer or a duly authorised officer acting on prior
information is about to search a person, it is imperative for him to inform the person
concerned of his right under sub-section (1) of Section 50 of being taken to the nearest
gazetted officer or the nearest Magistrate for making the search......"

(2) That failure to inform the person concerned about the existence of his right to be
searched before a gazetted officer or a Magistrate would cause prejudice to an
accused."

10. In the decisions in Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India 2024 (7) SCC 576,
Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) 2024(8) SCC 254 and
Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana AIR 2025 SC 1388, it has been held
that the requirement of informing a person of grounds for arrest is a
mandatory requirement of Article 22(1) and also that the information of the
grounds for arrest must be provided to the arrested person in such a manner
that sufficient knowledge of the basic facts confuting the grounds imparted
and communicate to the arrested person effectively in the language which he
understands.

11. Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above as also the
fact that though applicant is named in the FIR but no conscious possession
of aforesaid contraband ganja was said to be recovered from his possession,
name of applicant was surfaced on the basis of confessional statement of co-
accused persons, he is languishing in jail since 16.12.2025, no independent
and reliable witness was present at the time of preparation of recovery
memo, charge-sheet has already been submitted, the nature of accusations,
twin principles as laid down in Section 37 of N.D.P.S. Act, role and
involvement of accused, period of detention in jail, severity of the
punishment, nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of
tampering with the witness and prima facie case, without expressing any
opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid
crime be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond and two sureties
each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the
following conditions that:-

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the
witnesses.
                                                                                                 BAIL No. 889 of 2026
                                                                        5


                                    (ii) 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 Court.

                                    (iii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date
                                    fixed, either personally or as directed by the court concerned.

                                    (iv) 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 of accused personally to explain circumstances
                                    appearing in the evidence against him.

                                    (v) In case the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order
                                    to secure his presence, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him
                                    strictly, in accordance with law.

                                    12. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for
                                    cancellation of bail by the trial court.

                                    13. Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by
                                    the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

                                    February 9, 2026
                                    RA
                                                                                                   (Santosh Rai,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
RAZIQ ALI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad