Nitin Kumar vs State of U.P. — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2025)

Nitin Kumar vs State of U.P. — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Release of applicant Nitin Kumar on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned; sureties to be verified before issuance of the release order; subject to conditions: (i) not to tamper with evidence during trial; (ii) not to pressurise/intimidate prosecution witnesses; (iii) to appear before the trial court on dates fixed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant, Nitin Kumar, involved in Case Crime No. 47 of 2025 under Sections 8/15/29/60 of the NDPS Act (Police Station Nanauta, District Saharanpur), is entitled to be released on bail during the pendency of trial. +1 more

Court's answer

Considering the facts and circumstances, submissions of counsel, evidence on record, pending trial, and in the light of the judgments of Nanha (this Court), Paras Ram Vishnoi and Satender Kumar Antil (Supreme Court), the Court held — without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case — that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

Ratio / Principle

The bail application was allowed expressly on the ground of parity with the co-accused already enlarged on bail.

Key takeaways

The applicant is to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the sureties to be verified before issuance of the release order.ratio¶9
Breach of any of the imposed bail conditions (non-tampering with evidence, no pressurising/intimidation of prosecution witnesses, appearance before the trial court on dates fixed) shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.obiter¶10
The observations made in granting bail shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT (Court No. 67) – Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 18436 of 2025; order dated September 15, 2025 by Hon'ble Krishan Pahal, J.: Regular bail ALLOWED for applicant Nitin Kumar in Case Crime No. 47 of 2025 (Sections 8/15/29/60 of the NDPS Act; Police Station Nanauta, District Saharanpur) during pendency of trial, expressly on the ground of parity — co-accused Kuldeep Singh, from whose possession 9 quintal, 5 kilo and 400 grams of doda powder was recovered, had already been enlarged on bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 5.8.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 20562 of 2025, and the State did not dispute that parity aspect. Applicant languishing in jail since 27.02.2025; criminal history of one case explained in a supplementary affidavit. Grant made 'without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case', in the light of Nanha v. State of U.P., 1993 Crl.L.J. 938 (this Court), Paras Ram Vishnoi v. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, MANU/SCOR/22410/2021 (Supreme Court) and Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2022) 10 SCC 51 (Supreme Court); Prabhakar Tewari v. State of U.P., (2020) 11 SCC 648 (Supreme Court) earlier cited for the proposition that pendency of criminal cases against an accused may itself not be a basis for refusal of bail. Release ordered on personal bond and two sureties (each in the like amount, to be verified before the release order), conditioned on non-tampering with evidence, no pressurising/intimidation of prosecution witnesses and appearance before the trial court on fixed dates; breach of conditions to be a ground for cancellation of bail; the bail observations are not to affect the trial Judge's independent opinion.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 18436 of 2025

Nitin Kumar

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State of U.P.	.....Opposite Par
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Mayank Yadav, Vivek Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

.....Opposite Party(s)

Court No. - 67

HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

List has been revised. Supplementary affidavit filed today by the learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

Heard Sri Mayank Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri R.P. Patel, learned State Law Officer and also perused the material placed on record.

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 47 of 2025, under Sections 8/15/29/60 of NDPS Act, Police Station - Nanauta, District - Saharanpur, during the pendency of trial.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the co-accused person, Kuldeep Singh from whose possession 9 quintal, 5 kilo and 400 grams of doda powder was recovered, has already been enlarged on bail by coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 5.8.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 20562 of 2025. It is further submitted that since the case of the applicant is at a better footing to the case of co-accused, who has already been enlarged on bail, he is also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity.

Learned counsel has further stated that the applicant is languishing in jail since 27.02.2025. Criminal history of one case has been explained in the supplementary affidavit. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial.

The prayer for bail has been vehemently opposed by learned State Law Officer. However, the aforesaid factual aspect of parity to the co-accused has not been disputed by him.

In the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, (2020) 11 SCC 648 , the Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused may itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail.

BAIL No. 18436 of 2025

2

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, evidence on record, pending trial and in the light of the judgement passed by this Court in Nanha S/o Nabhan Kha vs. State of U.P., 1993 Crl.L.J. 938 and the judgement passed by the Supreme Court in Paras Ram Vishnoi vs. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, MANU/SCOR/22410/2021 coupled with the judgement of Supreme Court passed in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51 , without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. The bail application is allowed on the ground of parity.

Let the applicant- Nitin Kumar , who is involved in aforementioned case crime 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.

i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during trial.

ii) The applicant will not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed.

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

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.

September 15, 2025 Siddhant

(Krishan Pahal,J.)

Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad