Pawan Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:33296

Court No. - 13

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4562 of 2025

Applicant :- Pawan Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Neera Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶6

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

¶7

1A. Two supplementary affidavits filed today are taken on record.

¶8

This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.96 of 2025 under Section 8/21 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as NDPS Act), registered in P.S.Masauli, District Barabanki.

¶9

As per contents of First Information Report, the incident is said to have taken place on 11.03.2025 when a police team acting upon information supplied is said to have apprehended the applicant with illegal smack weighing 100 gram in his possession.

¶10

Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in allegations levelled against him which would be evident from fact that there is no independent witness of the alleged recovery made from applicant and there is violation of provisions of Sections 42, 50 and 52A of NDPS Act inasmuch as no recovery is said to have been made in the presence of either a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate nor even such sampling has been done in presence of such persons. It is submitted that applicant's previous criminal history of four cases have been explained.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail application with submission that as per report of forensic science laboratory, the illegal Narcotics in fact was heroin and not smack. It is submitted that provisions Section 52A of NDPS Act have subsequently been held to be only procedural in nature. It is submitted that there is substantial compliance of Section 50 of the Act as well.

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

¶13

"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

¶14

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, perusal of material available on record and prima facie subject to further evidence being led during trial, it appears that the quantity recovered from applicant is below commercial limit and there is no independent witness of the alleged recovery. The aspect of violation of provisions of NDPS Act would require consideration during trial. Previous Criminal history of applicant has been explained and therefore there is substantive compliance of Section 37 of NDPS Act. As such, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case

¶17

Accordingly bail application is allowed.

¶18

Let applicant Pawan Kumar , involved in 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/she 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/her 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/her 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/her, 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/her in accordance with law.

¶23

Order Date :- 30.5.2025 kvg/-

¶24

Digitally signed by :- GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Pawan Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pawan Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. 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

Amresh Kumar Rawat Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Pintu Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Israr @ Guddu vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Vishal vs State of U.P. Through Secretary Home Department, Civil Secretariat Lucknow

Kamlesh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Principal Secretary Home Lko and Another

Lavkush vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.