Pankaj Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:26610

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3920 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Pankaj Verma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Satendra Kumar (Singh),Shivam Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and perused the record.

¶8

This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No. 203 of 2025 under Sections 8/20 N.D.P.S. P.S. Madiyao, District Lucknow.

¶9

As per contents of FIR, the incident is said to have taken place on 04.04.2025 when the applicant was allegedly apprehended by the Police upon information being supplied and was allegedly apprehended with 21.2 kilogram Ganja.

¶10

It is submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him which would be evident from the fact that there is no independent witness of the alleged recovery. He has also alleged violation of statutory provisions of Sections 42, 50 and 52-A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. He submits that no sampling was done in the presence of any Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. It is submitted that applicant's single case previous criminal history unrelatable to N.D.P.S. Act has already been explained and he is under incarceration since 05.04.2025.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State opposed the prayer for bail with the submission that recovery is above commercial limit by 1.2 kg. However, he admits that previous criminal history has been explained. It is also submitted that ample compliance of relevant sections of N.D.P.S. Act have been done.

¶12

Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 has specifically held that bail is to be a norm and an under-trial is

¶13

not required to be in jail for ever pending trial. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment are as under :-

¶14

"21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty."

¶15

"27. This Court, time and again, has stated that bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. It has also observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution."

¶16

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties, prima facie, subject to evidence being led in trial, at this stage it appears that there is no independent witness of alleged recovery which has taken place on the basis of information supplied by the Police informant. Although the recovery is above commercial limit by 1.2 kg. but no F.S.L. report has been made available till date. The aspect of violation of relevant sections of N.D.P.S. Act indicated hereinabove would be subject matter of evidence during course of trial. Previous criminal history of applicant has already been explained.

¶17

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case of bail.

¶18

Let applicant, Pankaj Verma , involved in the aforesaid 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 with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶19

(i) 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. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶20

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶21

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶22

(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 under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court, absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶23

Order Date :- 7.5.2025 Satish

¶24

Digitally signed by :- SATISH KUMAR BHARATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Pankaj Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pankaj Verma v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

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

Shankar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and Another

Rajlal Kori Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Bilkish Bano Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Alok Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. U.P. and 3 Others

Sumit Joshi @ Sunny vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Secondary Education Lko. and 3 Others vs Praveen Singh and Another