Anil Kumar Singh Vs the State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:34394

Court No. - 12

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4906 of 2025

Applicant :- Anil Kumar Singh Opposite Party :- The State Of U.P. Thru. The Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Upendra Prakash Pathak,Akanksha,Dhananjay Tripathi,Pooja Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

1. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

¶7

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.

¶8

3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No. 39 of 2025, under Section 8/22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station Mohanganj, District Amethi.

¶9

4. As per the prosecution case, while the police party was on patrolling duty, one person was apprehended on the basis of suspicion, and upon personal search of the applicant, 52 grams of smack powder was allegedly recovered. The accused is said to have confessed to possessing the contraband substance.

¶10

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. It is contended that there is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. The recovered quantity of 52 grams is below the commercial quantity as defined in the Schedule to the NDPS Act. It is further submitted that Section 52A of the NDPS Act has not been complied with, as sampling was not conducted before a Magistrate.

¶11

6. Learned counsel further submits that since the recovered contraband is below the commercial quantity, the condition of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are not attracted. The applicant is in jail since 10.02.2025. The applicant has explained

¶12

the criminal history in paragraph 15 of the bail application. It is also submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant fleeing from justice or tampering with prosecution witnesses. If released on bail, the applicant undertakes not to misuse the liberty of bail.

¶13

7. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that compliance of Section 52A of the NDPS Act is not mandatory, as it is directory in nature.

¶14

8. On due consideration to the submissions advanced, perusal of the record, so also the fact that the applicant is in jail since 10.2.2025, the applicant has explained the criminal history, there is no independent witness of the recovery, the recovered quantity is below commercial and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶15

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶16

Let the applicant Anil Kumar Singh, involved in aforesaid case crime number be released on bail on her 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:-

¶17

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

¶18

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶19

(iii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶20

(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that 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.

¶21

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

¶22

(vi) 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 her, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶23

Order Date :- 3.6.2025

¶24

Madhu D.R/P.S

¶25

Digitally signed by :- MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Anil Kumar Singh v. the State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar Singh v. the State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Janu Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Lko.

Ranjeet @ Ram Narayan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 4 Others

Man Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow and 3 Others

Bainthe Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Deepak Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Sooraj Kumar Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.