Allahabad High Court
NAZAMAversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
Holding
The Court held that bail is appropriate in the present NDPS case, notwithstanding the alleged procedural lapse, and granted bail.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, on behalf of Nazama, who is charged under Sections 8 and 21(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act for alleged possession of 5.075 kg of charas. The applicant argued that the seizure violated mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act because the recovery memo lacked a gazetted officer’s signature, and highlighted her status as a woman with a seven‑month‑old child and no prior criminal record. The State contended that the seizure was conducted in the presence of a gazetted officer and that Section 50 requirements were met. Relying on Section 37 of the NDPS Act and the precedent set in Union of India v. Shiv Shanker Kesari (2007) 7 SCC 798, the Court found the case suitable for bail without expressing an opinion on the merits. Consequently, the bail application was allowed subject to a personal bond of Rs. 50,000, two sureties, and several conditions aimed at preventing tampering with evidence or intimidation of witnesses.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita for an NDPS offence where alleged non‑compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act is claimed.
- Whether the applicant’s personal circumstances (gender, motherhood, lack of prior record) justify bail despite the seriousness of the alleged offence.
- Whether compliance with the procedural requirements of Section 50 NDPS is a prerequisite for bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 351
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 483
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act — s. 21(c), 37, 50, 8
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- Section 50 compliance
- gender
- motherhood
- procedural lapse
- Section 37 NDPS
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
- court conditions
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10480 of 2026
Nazama
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anil Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 69
HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.
1. Heard Shri Anil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, and
Shri O.P. Singh, learned AGA for the State-respondents and perused the
record.
2. 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. 07 of 2026, under Section
8/21(c) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, registered at
Police Station Kotwali, District Mau, during pendency of the trial.
3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the
applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case due to
ulterior motive. It is further submitted that 5.075 Kg of charas is said to
have been recovered from the possession of the applicant. It is further
submitted that the mandatory provisions of Section 50 of N.D.P.S. Act
has not been complied with and the signature of gazetted officer has not
been found on the recovery memo. The applicant is languishing in jail
since 07.01.2026 and the applicant is a lady and she is having a child of
seven months old and the applicant is having no criminal history,
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.
4. Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the
applicant and it has been submitted by him that the alleged recovery has
BAIL No. 10480 of 2026
2
been conducted in the presence of Gazetted officer and mandatory
provisions of Section 50 has been complied with.
5. As per allegations in the first information report, 5.075 Kg of charas is
said to have been recovered from the possession of the applicant. It is
further submitted that the mandatory provisions of Section 50 of N.D.P.S.
Act has not been complied with and the signature of gazetted officer has
not been found on the recovery memo. The applicant is languishing in jail
since 07.01.2026 and the applicant is a lady and she is having a child of
seven months old and the applicant is having no criminal history.
6. Upon considering the totality of facts, nature and the evidence reflected
from record and also taking into consideration the provision of Section 37
of N.D.P.S. Act and the law laid down in the case of Union of India vs
Shiv Shanker Kesari (2007) 7 SCC 798 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.
7. Let the applicant- Nazama involved in the aforesaid case crime shall
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 :-
(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.
(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution
witnesses.
(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.
(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.
BAIL No. 10480 of 2026
3
(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date
fixed, either personally or through his counsel.
8. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail.
9. 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.
(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)
April 20, 2026
RKM
Digitally signed by :-
RAJESH KUMAR MAURYA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…