Ram Sahai vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:37686

Court No. - 14

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 925 of 2025

Applicant :- Ram Sahai Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Kumar,Anil Kumar Pandey,Shivendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

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

¶7

It is alleged in the FIR that the incident occurred on 27.10.2024 at around 5:10. Acting on received information, a truck bearing registration No. HR67A-9469 was intercepted, and the applicant, along with a co-accused, was apprehended with more than a commercial quantity of posta (remnants of afeem plant) being recovered from them.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that co-accused Pramod Rawat has already been granted bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 24.03.2025, passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 2453 of 2025.

¶9

It is further submitted that although the FIR mentions the presence of the Assistant Police Commissioner during the seizure proceedings, he has neither been made a prosecution witness nor has his statement been recorded, which casts doubt on the prosecution case.

¶10

Additionally, it is submitted that while seventeen bags of posta straw, weighing a total of 317.150 kg, were allegedly recovered, a sample was drawn only from bag L-17. Even this onekilogram sample does not match the quantity reflected in the FSL report. The FSL report, annexed with the counter affidavit,

¶11

indicates that only 249.3 grams were analyzed, despite the Investigating Officer claiming to have sent one kilogram. This discrepancy further makes the prosecution case doubtful.

¶12

It is also argued that although the police received prior information from a secret informer, the same was neither reduced into writing nor conveyed to any superior officer, which is a mandatory requirement. The applicant is in custody since 27.10.2024 and does not have any previous criminal antecedents.

¶13

It is further submitted that there is no likelihood of the applicant fleeing from judicial custody or tampering with prosecution witnesses. If released on bail, he undertakes not to misuse the liberty so granted.

¶14

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶15

Perused the record.

¶16

Upon consideration of the material available on record, including the manner of search and seizure, the absence of compliance with the mandatory provisions under Section 42 of the NDPS Act, and the discrepancies in the sampling and the FSL report, particularly the mismatch between the weight of the sent sample and the analyzed quantity, this Court finds that the prosecution case is doubtful at this stage.

¶17

It is further noted that although the seizure proceedings are said to have been conducted in the presence of the Assistant Police Commissioner, neither has he been made a prosecution witness nor has his statement been recorded, which casts further doubt on the authenticity and credibility of the seizure.

¶18

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, so also the fact

¶19

that the applicant has no previous criminal antecedents under the NDPS Act, the twin conditions of 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act appears to have been satisfied and there are reasonable grounds for believing that the applicant may not be held guilty of the alleged offence and he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

¶20

In view of the above, the bail application of the applicant is allowed .

¶21

Let the applicant, Ram Sahai, involved in Case Crime/F.I.R. No. 459/2024, under Sections 15(C)/25/8A(c) N.D.P.S. Act, P.S. Gosaiganj, District Lucknow, 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:-

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

(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.

¶25

(iv) 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.

¶26

(v) 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 (Now Section 269 of BNS).

¶27

(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. (now Section 84 BNSS) is issued and the applicant

¶28

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 IPC (now Section 209 of BNS).

¶29

It is clarified that the observations made in this order are confined to the present bail application and shall have no bearing on the merits of the trial.

¶30

Order Date :- 3.7.2025/R.C.

¶31

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

Ram Sahai v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Sahai v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. 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

Delinquent Child X Thru. His Mother Y Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Mahmood Ahmad vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical Health and Family Welfare Lko. and 4 Others

Kinnar Tiwari vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Vivek Yadav vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Home Affairs New Delhi and 3 Others

Archna vs District Magistrate Amethi District Amethi and 2 Others

Ravi Chauhan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko