Sumit Vs State of U.P.

The present bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been filed on behalf of applicant with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 16 of 2026 under Section 8/18/60 NDPS Act, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, District Budaun during pendency of the trial.

¶13

It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that co-accused Rajiv and Ibrish Kumar have already been granted bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 18.3.2026 and 20.3.2026 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application Nos. 5014 of 2026 and 4394 of 2026 respectively. It is further submitted that 861 gram of Opium is said to have been recovered from the possession of the applicant and mandatory provisions of section 52-A of NDPS Act have not been complied with as samples have not been collected in accordance with Rules 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the Rules published by the Union of India in the official gazette. It is further submitted that applicant has no criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 07.1.2026. It is also submitted that the applicant undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty, if granted. It has also been pointed out that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.

¶14

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and submits that mandatory provisions of NDPS Act have been complied with.

¶15

861 gram of Opium is said to have been recovered from the possession of the applicant and it is submitted that mandatory provisions of section 52-A of NDPS Act have not been complied with as samples have not been collected in accordance with Rules 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the Rules published by the Union of India in the official gazette. Co-accused Rajiv and Ibrish Kumar have already been granted bail by Co-

¶16

BAIL No. 15068 of 2026

¶17

2

¶18

ordinate Bench of this Court. Applicant has no criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 07.1.2026.

¶19

Upon considering the totality of facts, nature and evidence reflected from record, taking into consideration the provision of Section 37 of the NDPS Act and in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India vs. Shiv Shanker Kesari, 2007 (7) SCC 798 and Nadeem Ahmad vs. State of West Bengal 2025 LawSuit (SC) 1134 (2025 INSC 993) without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for bail. Hence, the present bail application is ALLOWED.

¶20

Let the applicant Sumit involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions :-

¶21

(i) 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.

¶22

(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

¶23

(iii) 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 351 of B.N.S.S.

¶24

(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 the trial court.

¶25

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.

¶26

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶27

It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.

¶28

May 5, 2026 Madhurima

¶29

(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)

¶30

Digitally signed by :- MADHURIMA GARG High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sumit v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumit 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Varun Sharma vs State of U.P.

Ranjeet vs State of U.P.

Mohan vs State of U.P.

Rais Ahmad Vs State of U.P.

Avadhesh Giri Vs State of U.P.

Intzar @ Mota Vs State of U.P.