Allahabad High Court

HARSH PALversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 19 April 2026
Bench: VIVEK VARMA

Holding

The Court held that, in view of the procedural lapses and lack of corroborative evidence, the accused is entitled to bail.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Harish Pal in a narcotics case (Crime No. 45 of 2026) under the NDPS Act. The applicant alleged false implication, claiming that the seizure of 23.9 kg of ganja was irregular, with violations of mandatory provisions of Sections 42, 50 and 52‑A and non‑compliance with sampling rules under the NDPS (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022. The State opposed bail but could not refute the applicant’s contentions regarding lack of independent witnesses, improper weighing, and absence of a forensic laboratory report. The Court observed that the procedural safeguards of Chapter V of the NDPS Act were not followed and there was no corroborative evidence linking the applicant to the offence. Given the applicant’s clean record, the length of pre‑trial detention, and no risk of tampering or intimidation, the Court held that bail was appropriate. Accordingly, the applicant was released on bail subject to personal bond, sureties and standard conditions.

Issues considered

Whether the procedural violations under the NDPS Act and its Rules justify granting bail to the accused.
Whether there is sufficient evidence to link the accused with the alleged narcotics offence.
Whether the risk of evidence tampering, witness intimidation, or trial delay exists warranting denial of bail.

Legislation cited

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 20, 25, 29, 42, 50, 52-A, 60(3), 8

Subjects

bail
NDPS Act
procedural violation
evidence admissibility
pre‑trial detention
seizure and sampling rules

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12267 of 2026

Harsh Pal
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Roopesh Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 64
HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.

1. Learned Brief Holder for the State submits that he has received the
instructions and he has no objection if the bail application is decided on
merits.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Nagendra Kumar
Mishra, learned Brief Holder for the State-opposite party, and perused the
record.

3. The instant bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 45 of 2026, under Sections
8/20/25/29/60(3) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,
Police Station Bichwa, District Mainpuri during the pendency of trial.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been
falsely implicated in the instant case. False recovery of 23.900 kg. Ganja
(two packets) has been shown from a car. There is no independent witness to
the alleged recovery. The mandatory provisions contained under Sections
42, 50, 52-A of the N.D.P.S. Act have not been complied with. The
procedure for sampling provided under Rules 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and
Disposal) Rules, 2022 have been violated. There is no F.S.L. report to
establish that the substance recovered is Ganja. While weighing the
recovered substance, the police has weighed it along with packing material.
The police has deliberately shown the quantity of the alleged narcotics
substance marginally higher in order to add to the gravity of the offence. No
accurate scientific instruments were used for weighment. Inventory of the
BAIL No. 12267 of 2026
2

seized contraband was not duly certified by the Magistrate. At this stage
there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. The
applicant is in jail since 03.03.2026 having no criminal history and in case
he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

5. Learned Brief Holder for the State has opposed the prayer for bail but
could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the
record, I am of the prima facie view that the mandate of Chapter V of the
NDPS Act has not been followed. There is no independent witness to the
alleged recovery. The procedure for sampling provided under Rules 8, 9, 10
and 11 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Seizure, Storage,
Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022 have been violated. At this stage there
is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence.
Moreover, the applicant has remained confined for more than one and half
month and after submission of the charge-sheet there is no hope of early
conclusion of the trial, more so when 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,
without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the
applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

7. Let the applicant- Harsh Pal, involved in the aforesaid case 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 subject to the
conditions that he:

(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;

(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; and,

(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.

8. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be
at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

(Vivek Varma,J.)
April 20, 2026
SKT/-

Digitally signed by :-
SHIVA KANT TIWARI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…