Pinki Vs State of U.P.

Heard Sri Shivakant Singh, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Neeraj Pal, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Uma Shankar Mishra, learned AGA for the Staterespondents and perused the record.

¶12

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 her on bail in Case Crime No. 412 of 2024 under Section 8/20/29 NDPS Act, registered at Police Station Shalimar Garden, District Ghaziabad during pendency of the trial.

¶13

It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that nothing has been recovered from the possession of the applicant and her name has surfaced in the confessional statement of co-accused Musarraf from whose possession, 1.250 kg of Ganja is said to have been recovered. It is further submitted that applicant has criminal history of two cases and she is languishing in jail since 17.4.2026. It is also submitted that the applicant undertakes that she 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

Nothing is said to have been recovered from the possession of the applicant and her name has surfaced in the confessional statement of co-accused Musarraf from whose possession, 1.250 kg of Ganja is said to have been recovered. Applicant has criminal history of two cases and she is languishing in jail since 17.4.2026.

¶16

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 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.

¶17

BAIL No. 16502 of 2026

¶18

2

¶19

Let the applicant Pinki involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on her 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 :-

¶20

(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.

¶21

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

¶22

(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.

¶23

(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 the trial court.

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

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.

¶27

May 14, 2026 Madhurima

¶28

(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)

¶29

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

Pinki v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pinki 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Bablu and Another vs State of U.P.

Mohd Fardeen vs State of U.P.

Khalik vs State of U.P.

Ravishankar Vs State of U.P.

Prashant Chauhan Vs State of U.P.

Rajneesh Dwivedi Vs State of U.P.