Allahabad High Court
HARSHIT GUPTAversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- VIVEK VARMA
Holding
The applicant is entitled to bail.
Summary
Harshit Gupta was arrested in a case under Sections 8 and 18 of the NDPS Act for alleged possession of 500 g of opium. He contended that the recovery was false, there was no independent witness, the seized quantity was below commercial levels, and mandatory provisions of Sections 42, 50, 51 and 52‑A of the NDPS Act were not complied with, nor was there an FSL report confirming the substance as opium. The State opposed bail but could not refute these points. The Court noted the lack of independent evidence, the procedural lapses, the co‑accused’s bail, and the applicant’s three‑month confinement without criminal history, and found no risk of tampering or witness intimidation. Consequently, the Court granted bail on condition of a personal bond, two sureties, and compliance with standard bail conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused under the NDPS Act given alleged procedural lapses and lack of independent evidence.
- Whether the applicant poses a risk of tampering with evidence, influencing witnesses, or delaying trial.
Legislation cited
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985 — s. 18, 42, 50, 51, 52-A, 8
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- drug possession
- procedural compliance
- false implication
- sureties
- court conditions
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12233 of 2026
Harshit Gupta
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Jitendra Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 64
HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri N.K. Sharma, learned A.G.A.
for the State and perused the record.
2. The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 49 of 2026, under Section 8/18 N.D.P.S.
Act 1985, Police Station- Dataganj, District- Budaun during pendency of the
trial.
3. Counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely
implicated in the instant case. False recovery of 500 gm. 'Opium' has been
shown from the possession of the applicant. There is no independent witness
to the alleged recovery. The recovered substance is below the commercial
quantity. The mandatory provisions of Section 42, 50, 51 and 52-A of
N.D.P.S. have not been complied with. There is no F.S.L. report to establish
that the substance recovered is 'Opium'. It is next contended that the co-
accused Prashant Gupta has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated
7.4.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.11590 of 2026
(Prashant Gupta Vs. State of U.P.). The applicant claims parity. The
applicant is in jail since 27.2.2026 having no criminal history. In case, he is
enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.
4. Learned AGA for the State has opposed the prayer for bail but could not
satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the
record, this Court prima facie finds that there is no independent witness to
the alleged recovery. The recovered substance is below the commercial
BAIL No. 12233 of 2026
2
quantity. The mandatory provisions of N.D.P.S. Act have not been complied.
There is no F.S.L. report to establish that the substance recovered is 'Opium'.
The co-accused Prashant Gupta has been granted bail by this Court.
Moreover, the applicant has remained confined for almost three months and
after submission of the charge-sheet there is no hope of early conclusion of
trial, and no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the
State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the
evidence or delay the trial or intimidate the witness, therefore, without
commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant
is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
6. Let the applicant, Harshit Gupta involved in the aforesaid case be released
on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like
amount to the satisfaction of court concerned on the following conditions
that:
i. the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;
ii. the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witness;
iii. the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court.
7. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be
at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.
April 20, 2026
S.S.
(Vivek Varma,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
SIDDHARTH SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…