Pappu Kumar v. Union Of India Thru. Superintendent, Narcotics Control Bureau, Lko

2.550 kilograms. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act have not been complied with. It is further submitted that the applicant was not arrested from the train as alleged, but was actually taken into custody from Chatra, Jharkhand, and both the arrest and recovery have been falsely shown from Lucknow. Learned counsel for the applicant also points out that although the search and seizure are said to have been conducted in the presence of Shri Chandra Shekhar Singh, Superintendent, N.C.B., Lucknow, his signatures are absent from the recovery memo available on record. It is further contended that no train ticket or personal belongings were 2 BAIL No. 9208 of 2025 recovered from either of the accused, which completely undermines the prosecution version. The applicant has no previous criminal antecedents. It has also been submitted that the alleged recovery comprises two packets weighing 1.275 kilograms each from the present applicant, and an identical quantity from co-accused Deepkar Kumar. In total, four packets marked P-1 to P-4 were recovered, collectively weighing about 5.1 kilograms of opium. Learned counsel further argues that the weighment of the seized contraband was conducted along with its wrappers and the parcel bag; hence, the actual weight of the opium, if measured excluding those, would likely fall below the threshold of commercial quantity. The co-accused Deepak Kumar has been released on bail vide order passed in Bail No.8494 of 2025. It is submitted that earlier in case crime No.6 of 2025, although there was no recovery from the applicant, still he was falsely implicated. The same has been explained in para 11 of the rejoinder affidavit filed today which is taken on record. It is further submitted that there is no likelihood of the applicant fleeing from judicial custody or tampering with prosecution witnesses. If released on bail, he undertakes not to misuse the liberty so granted. On the other hand, Shri Akhilesh Awasthi, learned counsel for the N.C.B., vehemently opposed the bail application, submitting that there was no reason for a central agency to falsely implicate the applicant. He contended that the applicant was caught red-handed, and after due investigation, a complaint has already been filed. Perused the record. Upon due consideration of the material available on record, and noting that the recovery memo, prima facie, does not bear the signature of Shri Chandra Shekhar Singh, in whose presence the alleged recovery is stated to have been made, and further that no tickets or personal belongings were recovered from the accused, it may be presumed, at this stage, that the applicant is not likely to be found guilty. Since the applicant has no criminal antecedents, it may 3 BAIL No. 9208 of 2025 also be presumed that he is not likely to commit any offence under the NDPS Act while on bail. In view of the observations made hereinabove, the twin conditions contemplated under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act appear to have been satisfied In view of the above as also keeping in view the bail order of the co-accused, the bail application of the applicant is allowed on the ground of parity. Let the applicant, Pappu Kumar, involved in NCB Crime No. 07/2025, under Sections 8/18/29 N.D.P.S. Act, P.S. Narcotics Control Bureau Lucknow, District Lucknow, 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 which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii) 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. (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 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. (v) The applicant 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 (Now Section 269 of BNS). (vi) 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. (now Section 84 BNSS) is issued and the applicant fails 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 IPC (now Section 209 of BNS). 4 BAIL No. 9208 of 2025 It is clarified that the observations made in this order are confined to the present bail application and shall have no bearing on the merits of the trial. November 19, 2025 kkb/ (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) KRISHNA KUMAR BARANWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

2.550 kilograms. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act have not been complied with. It is further submitted that the applicant was not arrested from the train as alleged, but was actually taken into custody from Chatra, Jharkhand, and both the arrest and recovery have been falsely shown from Lucknow. Learned counsel for the applicant also points out that although the search and seizure are said to have been conducted in the presence of Shri Chandra Shekhar Singh, Superintendent, N.C.B., Lucknow, his signatures are absent from the recovery memo available on record. It is further contended that no train ticket or personal belongings were 2 BAIL No. 9208 of 2025 recovered from either of the accused, which completely undermines the prosecution version. The applicant has no previous criminal antecedents. It has also been submitted that the alleged recovery comprises two packets weighing 1.275 kilograms each from the present applicant, and an identical quantity from co-accused Deepkar Kumar. In total, four packets marked P-1 to P-4 were recovered, collectively weighing about 5.1 kilograms of opium. Learned counsel further argues that the weighment of the seized contraband was conducted along with its wrappers and the parcel bag; hence, the actual weight of the opium, if measured excluding those, would likely fall below the threshold of commercial quantity. The co-accused Deepak Kumar has been released on bail vide order passed in Bail No.8494 of 2025. It is submitted that earlier in case crime No.6 of 2025, although there was no recovery from the applicant, still he was falsely implicated. The same has been explained in para 11 of the rejoinder affidavit filed today which is taken on record. It is further submitted that there is no likelihood of the applicant fleeing from judicial custody or tampering with prosecution witnesses. If released on bail, he undertakes not to misuse the liberty so granted. On the other hand, Shri Akhilesh Awasthi, learned counsel for the N.C.B., vehemently opposed the bail application, submitting that there was no reason for a central agency to falsely implicate the applicant. He contended that the applicant was caught red-handed, and after due investigation, a complaint has already been filed. Perused the record. Upon due consideration of the material available on record, and noting that the recovery memo, prima facie, does not bear the signature of Shri Chandra Shekhar Singh, in whose presence the alleged recovery is stated to have been made, and further that no tickets or personal belongings were recovered from the accused, it may be presumed, at this stage, that the applicant is not likely to be found guilty. Since the applicant has no criminal antecedents, it may 3 BAIL No. 9208 of 2025 also be presumed that he is not likely to commit any offence under the NDPS Act while on bail. In view of the observations made hereinabove, the twin conditions contemplated under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act appear to have been satisfied In view of the above as also keeping in view the bail order of the co-accused, the bail application of the applicant is allowed on the ground of parity. Let the applicant, Pappu Kumar, involved in NCB Crime No. 07/2025, under Sections 8/18/29 N.D.P.S. Act, P.S. Narcotics Control Bureau Lucknow, District Lucknow, 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 which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii) 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. (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 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. (v) The applicant 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 (Now Section 269 of BNS). (vi) 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. (now Section 84 BNSS) is issued and the applicant fails 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 IPC (now Section 209 of BNS). 4 BAIL No. 9208 of 2025 It is clarified that the observations made in this order are confined to the present bail application and shall have no bearing on the merits of the trial. November 19, 2025 kkb/ (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) KRISHNA KUMAR BARANWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench