Allowed¶12

Omprakash v. State of U.P.

Bail – Section 483 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – NDPS Act, Sections 8/20/29

Allahabad HC24 Mar 2025BAIL/9622/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court (Ashutosh Srivastava, J., 24.3.2025) allows bail application under S.483 BNSS 2023 of Om Prakash in Case Crime No. 397 of 2024, Sections 8/20/29 NDPS Act, P.S. Sirsaganj, Firozabad (5 Kg. Ganga recovery); parity with bailed co-accused; reliance on Balchand (1977) 4 SCC 308 and Gudikanti Narasimhulu AIR 1978 SC 429; bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to applicant Om Prakash on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, subject to conditions (non-tampering with evidence/witnesses, cooperation in trial without adjournments, no criminal activity); identity, status and residence proof of applicant and sureties to be verified by the court concerned before acceptance of bonds. ¶12

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶12

Issue for consideration

Whether applicant Om Prakash, arraigned in Case Crime No. 397 of 2024 under Sections 8/20/29 of the NDPS Act (alleged recovery of 5 Kg. Ganga), deserves to be released on bail under Section 483 BNSS, 2023.

¶7

Court's answer

Applying the principle that bail is the rule and committal to jail the exception (Balchand; Gudikanti Narasimhulu), and considering the nature of accusations, evidence, severity of punishment, character of the accused and other relevant circumstances without expressing any opinion on merits, the Court held this to be a fit case for grant of bail.

¶11

Ratio / Principle

Applicant Om Prakash was ordered 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 conditions: no tampering with prosecution evidence or intimidating/pressurising witnesses, sincere cooperation in trial without seeking adjournments, and no indulgence in criminal activity; breach would be a ground for cancellation, and identity, status and residence proof of applicant and sureties to be verified before bonds are accepted.

¶12

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail — Section 483 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — NDPS Act, Sections 8/20/29 — Case Crime No. 397 of 2024, P.S. Sirsaganj, District Firozabad — alleged recovery of 5 Kg. Ganga from the applicant — contention of absence of independent witness, non-compliance with Section 50 NDPS Act and no chemical analyst report — applicant in jail since 19.2.2025 with no criminal history — co-accused Lekhpal and Sonu Kumar already enlarged on bail by co-ordinate Bench on 27.9.2024 — relying on State of Rajasthan v. Balchand @ Baliay, (1977) 4 SCC 308 and Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor, AIR 1978 SC 429, held bail is the rule and jail the exception — bail granted on personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, with conditions against tampering, seeking adjournments and criminal activity; breach a ground for cancellation.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:42435

¶2

Court No. - 68

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9622 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Om Prakash Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Jitendra Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Jitendra Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Yagvalk Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record of the case.

¶7

The present bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed on behalf of applicant, Om Prakash with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 397 of 2024, under Section 8/20/29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station- Sirsaganj , District- Firozabad .

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that 5 Kg. Ganga is alleged to have been recovered from the possession of the applicant. 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. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that co-accused Lekhpal and Sonu Kumar has already been enlarged on bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 27.9.2024 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 35895 of 2024 and 35897 of 2024. The applicant, who is in jail since 19.2.2025 having no criminal history to his credit, deserves to be released on bail. In case the applicant is released on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶9

Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant, but submits that similarly circumstanced aforesaid co-accused has already been granted bail by this Court.

¶10

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

¶11

"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.

¶12

Without expressing any opinion on the merits, let the applicant Om Prakash involved in abovesaid 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 :-

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

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.

¶17

Order Date :- 24.3.2025 Ravi Prakash

¶18

(Ashutosh Srivastava, J.)

¶19

Digitally signed by :- RAVI PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Omprakash v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Omprakash v. State of U.P.

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

Similar cases

Syam Singh @ Pole vs State of U.P.

Mazid Kabadi vs State of U.P.

Vivek Kumar Pandey vs State of U.P.

Aryan vs State of U.P.

Jabir vs State of U.P.

Shahid vs State of U.P.