Anil @ Puchakka vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail during the trial in Case Crime No.017 of 2024, under sections 18/20 of N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station Dahi, District Unnao.

¶13

Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant matter due to ulterior motive. He submits that as per the prosecution story, 1.300 kg. of Charas is said to be recovered from the possession of the applicant, which is slightest above the commercial quantity, though there is no independent public eyewitness of the alleged recovery.

¶14

He added that there is non-compliance of Section 50 of N.D.P.S. Act as no gazetted officer was present at the time of the recovery and in support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the Judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Arif Khan @ Agha Khan vs. State of Uttarakhand, (2018) 18 SCC 380 wherein it has been held that mandatory procedure of Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act has to be complied with in regard to search and recovery. He further submits that the criminal history of the applicant has been explained properly in paragraph 7 of the rejoinder

¶15

BAIL No. 446 of 2025

¶16

2

¶17

affidavit, and he is languishing in jail since 2.2.2024. He also submits that charge-sheet has been filed and as such, there is no possibility that the applicant would tamper with the evidences or would threaten the witnesses. Further submitted that the applicant undertakes that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶18

Per contra, learned AGA appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that the applicant was involved in committing the aforesaid offence and thus, he is not entitled for any relief.

¶19

Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires that the applicant is languishing in jail since 2.2.2024; as per the prosecution story, 1.300 kg. of charas is said to be recovered from the possession of the applicant, which is slightest above the commercial quantity i.e. 1kg, though there is no independent public eyewitness of the alleged recovery; charge-sheet has been filed and as such, there is no possibility that the applicant would tamper with the evidences or would threaten the witnesses; criminal history of the applicant has been explained properly coupled with the fact that he has undertaken that if he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶20

Considering the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case of bail.

¶21

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶22

Let the applicant- Anil @ Puchakka involved in the aforementioned 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:-

¶23

(1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by

¶24

BAIL No. 446 of 2025

¶25

3

¶26

intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial;

¶27

(2) 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. He 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;

¶28

(3) 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 313 Cr.P.C.; and

¶29

(4) 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. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶30

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶31

It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case.

¶32

(Rajeev Bharti,J.)

¶33

February 24, 2026 Shukla

¶34

Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH KUMAR SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Anil @ Puchakka v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil @ Puchakka v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home 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

Mohd. Shamim @ Mohd. Shameem vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Sapna Singh vs State of U.P. Thur. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and 2 Others

Mohammad Jabir Alias Munna vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Vikas vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Rishu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Indra Prakash Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy.Home Lucknow