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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Bail granted to Pintu Kumar in Case Crime No. 20 of 2025 (Sections 8/21 NDPS Act, PS Kotwali, District Ballia) on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, subject to conditions of non-tampering with prosecution evidence/witnesses, sincere cooperation in trial without adjournments, and abstention from criminal activity.

Issue for consideration

Whether Pintu Kumar, arraigned in Case Crime No. 20 of 2025 under Sections 8/21 of the NDPS Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Ballia, should be released on bail.

Court's answer

Without expressing any opinion on the merits, and weighing the nature of accusations, the evidence, the severity of punishment, the character of the accused and other circumstances in the light of Article 21, the court held it is a fit case for grant of bail.

Ratio / Principle

The applicant Pintu Kumar 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.

Key takeaways

Bail is subject to conditions: the applicant shall not tamper with prosecution evidence or intimidate/pressurise witnesses, shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking adjournments, and shall not indulge in any criminal activity; breach of any condition shall be a ground for cancellation of bail, and identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties is to be verified before the bonds are accepted.ratio¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava, J.) allowed Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 4812 of 2025 filed under Section 483 B.N.S.S. by Pintu Kumar, arraigned in Case Crime No. 20 of 2025 under Sections 8/21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station Kotwali, District Ballia. Counsel contended that the alleged recovery of 40 gm heroin, one Realme mobile and Rs. 200/- was much below the commercial quantity, was unsupported by independent witness, that Section 50 NDPS was not followed and there was no chemical analyst report; the applicant, in jail since 18.01.2025 with no criminal history, sought bail on parity. Relying on State of Rajasthan v. Balchand @ Baliay (1977) 4 SCC 308 (bail, not jail) and Gudikanti Narasimhulu (AIR 1978 SC 429), and invoking Article 21, the court, without expressing any opinion on merits, found it a fit case for bail and released the applicant on a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount, subject to conditions of non-tampering, cooperation in trial and abstention from crime, breach being a ground for cancellation.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:52775

Court No. - 68

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4812 of 2025 Applicant :- Pintu Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Nikil Pathak,Sunil Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Arimardan Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record of the case.

The present bail application under Section 483 B.N.S.S. has been filed on behalf of applicant, Pintu Kumar with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 20 of 2025, under Sections 8/21 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station- Kotwali, District- Ballia.

Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that 40 gm. of heroin and one Realme mobile as well as Rs. 200/- are alleged to have been recovered from the possession of the applicant, which is much below the commercial quantity. In fact no such recovery was effected from the applicant. It is further submitted that since such recovery is not supported by independent witness, possibility of his false implication in the crime cannot be ruled out. It is next contended that in the present case the prosecution has failed to follow strictly the provisions of Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act. There is no report of chemical analyst. It is also argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present crime with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and victimize him. The applicant, who is in jail since 18.01.2025 having no criminal history to his credit, deserves to be released on bail on the ground of parity. In case the applicant is released on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage who is involved in supplying contraband, therefore, the applicant does not deserve any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activity.

It is settled position of law that bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs.

Balchand @ Baliay (1977) 4 SCC 308 , the Apex Court observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and opined para 2 "The basic rule may perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail, except where there are circumstances suggestive of fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like, by the petitioner who seeks enlargement on bail from the court. We do. not intend to be exhaustive but only illustrative." and considering the facts of the case and keeping in mind, the ratio of the Apex Court's judgment in the case of Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors vs Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 429 , 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.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits, let the applicant Pintu 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 that :-

The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

Order Date :- 9.4.2025/v.k.updh.

Digitally signed by :- VINOD KUMAR UPADHYAY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad