Allowed¶16

Abdul Khalik @ Rinku v. State of U.P.

NDPS Act – Bail

Allahabad HC21 Jul 2025BAIL/17348/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court (Krishan Pahal, J.), order dated 22.7.2025 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 17348 of 2025: bail allowed under Sections 8/20/60 NDPS Act and Section 317(2) BNS, Case Crime No. 184 of 2025, PS Nawabganj, Prayagraj; 24kg 300gm ganja recovery; Section 37 NDPS bail parameters; Section 50/52-A compliance plea; precedents relied on: Arif Khan @ Agha Khan v. State of Uttarakhand (2018) 18 SCC 380; Union of India vs. Shiv Shankar Keshari (2007) 7 SCC 798.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to applicant Abdul Khalik @ Rinku on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, subject to conditions (no tampering with evidence, no pressurising/intimidation of prosecution witnesses, appearance before trial court on fixed dates), with sureties to be verified before release order. ¶16

Abdul Khalik @ Rinku Vs State of U.P. — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶16

Issue for consideration

Whether applicant Abdul Khalik @ Rinku, arraigned under Sections 8/20/60 NDPS Act and Section 317(2) BNS for recovery of 24kg 300gm ganja, is entitled to bail during the pendency of trial.

¶8

Court's answer

Considering the facts, the ratio in Union of India vs. Shiv Shankar Keshari, Article 21, nature of accusations and evidence, severity of punishment, character of the accused and other bail circumstances, and without expressing any opinion on the merits, the court found it a fit case for grant of bail.

¶15

Ratio / Principle

Applicant directed to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, subject to conditions of not tampering with evidence, not pressurising/intimidating prosecution witnesses, and appearing before the trial court on dates fixed; breach to be ground for cancellation.

¶16

Key takeaways

Observations made while granting bail shall not affect the trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of witnesses.obiter¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

NDPS Act — Bail — Recovery of 24kg 300gm ganja from applicant along with co-accused; quantity alleged by State to be commercial — Arguments of non-compliance of Sections 50 and 52-A NDPS Act and that equal apportionment between two accused would fall below commercial quantity noted — Applicant in custody since 27.04.2025 with no criminal antecedents — Following Union of India vs. Shiv Shankar Keshari, (2007) 7 SCC 798 (Section 37 inquiry confined to reasonable grounds, not acquittal-style finding) and Arif Khan @ Agha Khan v. State of Uttarakhand, (2018) 18 SCC 380 (mandatory Section 50 compliance), and keeping in mind Article 21, bail granted without expressing opinion on merits, on personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions; observations not to affect trial court's independent assessment.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:120337

¶2

Court No. - 65

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17348 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Abdul Khalik @ Rinku Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Singh Baish Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Rajesh Singh Baish, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶8

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.184 of 2025, under Section 8/20/60 of The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and Section 317(2) BNS, Police Station- Nawabganj, District- Prayagraj, during the pendency of trial.

¶9

As per the allegations of the FIR, the applicant along with co-accused Mohd. Akram are said to have been apprehended by the police on 26.04.2025 at about 07:52 PM and 24kg 300gm of Ganja is said to have been recovered from his possession.

¶10

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. There is no compliance of mandatory provision of Section 50 & 52-A of the N.D.P.S. Act. If the contraband alleged to have been recovered is apportioned equally between the two accused persons then it will fall below commercial quantity. The applicant is languishing in jail since 27.04.2025 having no criminal antecedents to his credit. The applicant is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the recovery of the contraband article is of commercial quantity.

¶12

In Arif Khan @ Agha Khan v. State of Uttarakhand (2018) 18 SCC 380 , in which the Supreme Court held that Section 50 of the NDPS Act mandatorily required search of the suspect/accused to be carried out in the presence of a magistrate or Gazetted officer, even if such a suspect/accused had waived the right to be taken to a magistrate or Gazetted Officer.

¶13

The Supreme Court in the Case of Union of India vs. Shiv Shankar Keshari,

¶14

(2007) 7 SCC 798 has held that the court while considering the application for bail with reference to Section 37 of the Act is not called upon to record a finding of not guilty. It is for the limited purpose essentially confined to the question of releasing the accused on bail that the court is called upon to see if there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and records its satisfaction about the existence of such grounds. But the court has not to consider the matter as if it is pronouncing a judgment of acquittal and recording a finding of not guilty.

¶15

Considering the facts of the case and keeping in mind, the ratio of the Supreme Court's judgment in the case of Union of India vs. Shiv Shankar Keshari (supra) larger mandate of Article 21 of the constitution of India, the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused-applicant, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interest of the public/ State and other circumstances, but without expressing any opinion on the merits, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail.

¶16

Let the applicant- Abdul Khalik @ Rinku , who is involved in aforementioned case be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶17

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence during trial.

¶18

(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

¶19

(iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed.

¶20

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

¶21

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶22

Order Date :- 22.7.2025 Karan

¶23

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶24

Digitally signed by :- KARAN KUMAR RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Abdul Khalik @ Rinku v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Khalik @ Rinku v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases