Allahabad High Court
AKARAMversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
Holding
The Court held that bail should be granted as the case satisfied the criteria under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, notwithstanding the alleged procedural lapses.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, on behalf of Akaram, who is charged under Sections 8 and 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act for alleged possession of 1.2 kg of charas. The applicant contended that the mandatory requirement of Section 50 of the NDPS Act—recovery in the presence of a gazetted officer—was not complied with, and argued innocence and the risk of prolonged detention. The State argued that the procedural provisions of Sections 50, 52‑A of the NDPS Act and Section 105 of the BNSS had been satisfied. The Court, referring to Section 37 of the NDPS Act and the precedent set in Union of India v. Shiv Shanker Kesari (2007) 7 SCC 798, held that the case was suitable for bail despite the pending trial. Accordingly, bail was granted on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties and a series of conditions aimed at preventing witness tampering and ensuring the applicant’s presence at trial stages.
Issues considered
- Whether the mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act were complied with in the alleged recovery of charas.
- Whether the applicant is entitled to bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, given the nature of the offence and the applicant’s criminal history.
- Whether the procedural requirements of Sections 52‑A of the NDPS Act and Section 105 of the BNSS have been satisfied.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 483
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) — s. 105, 351
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act — s. 20, 37, 50, 52-A, 8
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- charas possession
- Section 50 compliance
- mandatory procedural requirements
- criminal procedure
- witness tampering
- pre‑trial detention
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1359 of 2026
Akaram
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Deepak Yadav, Suraj Singh, Vandana
Rai, Vindhya Vasini Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 69
HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.
1. Rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant is taken on record.
2. Heard Shri Suraj Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, and Shri O.P.
Singh, learned AGA for the State-respondents and perused the record.
3. 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. 744 of 2025, under Section 8/20 of
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, registered at Police
Station Katghar, District Moradabad, during pendency of the trial.
4 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 1.2 Kg of charas is said to have
been recovered from the possession of the applicant. It is further submitted
that the mandatory provisions of Sections 50 of N.D.P.S. Act have not been
complied with as the alleged recovery has not been made in the presence of a
Gazetted Officer. The applicant is languishing in jail since 24.11.2025 and
the applicant is having criminal history, which has been explained in the
memo of application, undertakes that he 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.
5. Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant
and it has been submitted by him that the mandatory provisions of Sections
50, 52-A of N.D.P.S. Act and Section 105 of BNSS have been complied
BAIL No. 1359 of 2026
2
with.
6. As per allegations in the first information report, 1.2 Kg of charas is said
to have been recovered from the possession of the applicant. It is further
submitted that the mandatory provisions of Sections 50 of N.D.P.S. Act have
not been complied with as the alleged recovery has not been made in the
presence of a Gazetted Officer. The applicant is languishing in jail since
24.11.2025 and the applicant is having criminal history, which has been
explained in the memo of application.
7. 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.
8. Let the applicant- Akaram involved in the aforesaid case crime shall be
released on bail on his 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 he shall not seek
any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are
present in the trial court.
(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date
fixed, either personally or through his counsel.
9. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail.
BAIL No. 1359 of 2026
3
10. 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.
May 7, 2026
RKM
(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
RAJESH KUMAR MAURYA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…