Khalik 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. 565 of 2025 under Section 8/20/29 NDPS Act, registered at Police Station Gopiganj, District Bhadohi during pendency of the trial.

¶11

It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that nothing has been recovered from the possession of the applicant and his name has surfaced in the confessional statement of co-accused Sohanpal @ Sonu who was driving a vehicle from which, 3 quintal 77 kg and 850 gram of Ganja is said to have been recovered. He further submits that confessional statement of co-accused is not admissible in evidence in view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Toofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu. It is further submitted that applicant has criminal history of two cases and he is languishing in jail since 30.3.2026. 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.

¶12

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant.

¶13

Name of the applicant has surfaced in the confessional statement of co-accused Sohanpal @ Sonu who was driving a vehicle and 3 quintal 77 kg and 850 gram of Ganja is said to have been recovered from the said vehicle. Applicant has criminal history of two cases and he is languishing in jail since 30.3.2026.

¶14

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 Toofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu

¶15

BAIL No. 16053 of 2026

¶16

2

¶17

and 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.

¶18

Let the applicant Khalik 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 :-

¶19

(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.

¶20

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

¶21

(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.

¶22

(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.

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

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.

¶26

May 12, 2026 Madhurima

¶27

(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)

¶28

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

Khalik v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Khalik 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

Shiv Prasad Mishra Vs State of U.P.

Shivam Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Vikas Kharwar Vs State of U.P.

Bablu and Another vs State of U.P.

Mohd Fardeen vs State of U.P.

Anjish Kumar vs State of U.P.