Allowed

Kadiya Hassa @ Sanjay Hassa v. Narcotics Control Bureau Thru. Ministry Home Affairs

Allahabad HC31 Jul 2025BAIL/4651/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench (Court No. 14), Karunesh Singh Pawar, J.; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC-LKO:44578; Order Date 31.7.2025. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 4651 of 2025 — Kadiya Hassa @ Sanjay Hassa v. Narcotics Control Bureau (Thru. Ministry Home Affairs); counsel: Pradeep Kumar Srivastava and Prem Kumar Srivastava (applicant), Akhilesh Kumar Awasthi (NCB). Keywords: NDPS bail; S

What did the court decide?

Applicant Kadiya Hassa @ Sanjay Hassa 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, subject to four imposed

Kadiya Hassa @ Sanjay Hassa Vs Narcotics Control Bureau… — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:44578

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4651 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Kadiya Hassa @ Sanjay Hassa Opposite Party :- Narcotics Control Bureau Thru. Ministry Home Affairs

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,Prem Kumar Srivastava

¶6

Counsel for Opposite Party :- Akhilesh Kumar Awasthi

¶7

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶8

1.Heard learned counsel for applicant as well as Mr. Akhilesh Kumar Awasthi, learned counsel for NCB and perused the record. A counter affidavit filed today on behalf of learned counsel for NCB is taken on record.

¶9

This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.17 of 2024, under Sections 8/18/29 NDPS, registered at Police Station NCB, District Lucknow.

¶10

As per contents of FIR/recovery memo, incident is said to have taken place on 18.07.2024 when on information being received, an NCB team apprehended the applicant from roadways bus with illegal opium (Afim) in his possession.

¶11

Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in charges levelled against him which would be evident from the fact that despite arrest having taken place from inside a roadways bus, there is no independent witness of the alleged recovery. It is submitted that only 1800 gms of opium (Afim) were recovered from the possession of applicant and is therefore below commercial quantity. It is submitted that applicant without previous criminal history is under incarceration 18.07.2024 with only complaint having been filed till date.

¶12

Learned counsel for NCB has opposed bail application with the submission that there is no occasion for the NCB team to falsely implicate applicant in the recovery of opium. It is submitted that although recovery has been made from a bus but the aspect of absence of any independent witness would not vitiate trial particularly in view of the fact that people are not readily available to become independent witnesses. It is admitted that applicant does not have any previous criminal history and as yet only complaint has been filed since provisions of the Act stipulate that such complaint is to be filed within a period of six months.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the co-accused Umesh Kumar who was assigned the similar role has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 09.05.2025 passed in criminal misc. bail application No. 11222 of 2024. Learned counsel for the applicant seeks parity with the order of the co-accused.

¶14

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 :-

¶15

"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.

¶16

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."

¶17

Considering submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material available on record, it appears that although alleged recovery has taken place in a roadways bus full of passengers but the aspect of not a single independent witness would be taken into consideration at the time of trial during evidence. Since it is admitted that applicant does not have any previous criminal history and is under incarceration since 18.07.2024 with only complaint having been filed till date. Recovery memo indicates that although 4.4. Kg opium was recovered collectively from three persons but recovery from applicant is of 1800 gms which is below the commercial limit. The co-accused Umesh Kumar who was assigned the similar role has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 09.05.2025 passed in criminal misc. bail application No. 11222 of 2024.

¶18

Looking to the nature of allegations levelled against the applicant and submission made in the bail application, without expressing any opinion on the merits of case and considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, particularly since no reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses has been alleged, prima facie, this Court finds, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case on the ground of parity.

¶19

Accordingly bail application is allowed on the ground of parity.

¶20

Let applicant, Kadiya Hassa @ Sanjay Hassa , involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his/her

¶21

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:-

¶22

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she/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.

¶23

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

¶24

(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.

¶25

(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.

¶26

Order Date :- 31.7.2025 R.C.

¶27

Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Kadiya Hassa @ Sanjay Hassa v. Narcotics Control Bureau Thru. Ministry Home Affairs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kadiya Hassa @ Sanjay Hassa v. Narcotics Control Bureau Thru. Ministry Home Affairs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Dhirendra Alias Baba Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

Harikesh Verma (in Id Harikesh) Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko. and Another

Mohd. Asgar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Thakara Ram Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Maneesh Kumar Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy, Deptt. of Home Lko.

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