Ranjay Kumar Maurya v. State of U.P.

guilty" means that it can only be a prima facie determination.

#7. In State of Punjab Vs. Baldev Singh 1999 (6) SCC 172 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the compliance of Section 50 N.D.P.S. Act is mandatory. ".....That when an empowered officer or a duly authorised officer acting on prior information is about to search a person, it is imperative for him to inform the person concerned of his right under sub-section (1) of Section 50 of being taken to the nearest gazetted officer or the nearest Magistrate for making the search......" (2) That failure to inform the person concerned about the existence of his right to be searched before a gazetted officer or a Magistrate would cause prejudice to an accused."

#8. In the decisions in Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India 2024 (7) SCC 576, Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) 2024(8) SCC 254 and Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana AIR 2025 SC 1388, it has been held that the requirement of informing a person of grounds for arrest is a mandatory requirement of Article 22(1) and also that the information of the grounds for 3 BAIL No. 21747 of 2025 arrest must be provided to the arrested person in such a manner that sufficient knowledge of the basic facts confuting the grounds imparted and communicate to the arrested person effectively in the language which he understands.

#9. Considering all above facts and circumstances, the nature of accusations, twin principles as laid down in Section 37 of N.D.P.S. Act, period of detention in jail, severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness and prima facie case, but without commenting on merit of case, a case for bail is made out.

#10. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

#11. Let the accused-applicant, Ranjay Kumar Maurya, involved in above mentioned case crime number be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each, in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions: (i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses. (ii) 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. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A I.P.C./269 B.N.S. (iv) In case the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C./84 B.N.S.S. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation then the Trial Court shall initiate proceedings against him in accordance with law under Section 174-A I.P.C./209. B.N.S. (v) 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./351 B.N.S.S. If in the 4 BAIL No. 21747 of 2025 opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

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

#13. Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted. September 22, 2025 SY (Santosh Rai,J.) SWETA YADAV SWETA YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad