Allahabad High Court
BADALversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
Holding
The Court held that bail should be granted to the applicant despite the alleged procedural lapse in the seizure.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, on behalf of Badan, who was arrested in a case under Sections 8 and 20 of the NDPS Act for alleged possession of 1.034 kg of charas. The applicant contended that the recovery was illegal because Section 50 of the NDPS Act, which requires the presence of a gazetted officer during seizure, was not complied with, and he claimed false implication. The State, represented by the Additional Government Advocate, argued that the statutory requirements had been fulfilled and that the applicant had previously been convicted in another case. The Court examined the statutory framework, particularly Sections 37 and 50 of the NDPS Act, and relied on precedents such as Union of India v. Shiv Shanker Kesari (2007), Nadeem Ahmad v. State of West Bengal (2025), and Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India (2024). Finding that the circumstances warranted bail and without expressing any view on the merits, the Court granted bail subject to a personal bond and several conditions. The order expressly limited its effect to the bail application and did not prejudice the trial court’s independent assessment of the evidence.
Issues considered
- Whether the recovery of charas complied with the mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act requiring the presence of a gazetted officer.
- Whether the applicant is entitled to bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in view of the nature of the offence and his criminal history.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 483
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act — s. 20, 37, 50, 8
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- Section 50 compliance
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
- criminal procedure
- pre‑trial detention
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14260 of 2026
Badal
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Girish Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 69
HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.
1. Heard Sri Girish Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Uma Shankar Mishra,
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. 209 of 2026 under Section 8/20 NDPS Act, registered at Police
Station Majhola, District Moradabad during pendency of the trial.
3. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has been
falsely implicated in this case and 1.034 kg of charas is said to have been recovered
from his possession and mandatory provisions of sections 50 of NDPS Act have not
been complied with as the alleged recovery has not been made in the presence of any
gazetted officer and the said fact is also evident from the recovery memo and FIR
itself. It is further submitted that applicant has criminal history of one case and he is
languishing in jail since 28.2.2026. It is also submitted that the applicant 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.
4. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the
applicant and submits that mandatory provisions of NDPS Act have been complied
with and consent of the applicant was obtained before his personal search.
5. As per the FIR, 1.034 kg of charas is said to have been recovered from the
possession of the applicant and it is submitted that mandatory provisions of sections
50 of NDPS Act have not been complied with as the alleged recovery has not been
made in the presence of any gazetted officer. Applicant has criminal history of one
case and he is languishing in jail since 28.2.2026.
6. Upon considering the totality of facts, nature and evidence reflected from record,
taking into consideration the provision of Section 37 of the NDPS Act and in view of
BAIL No. 14260 of 2026
2
the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India vs. Shiv Shanker Kesari,
2007 (7) SCC 798 and Nadeem Ahmad vs. State of West Bengal 2025 LawSuit
(SC) 1134 (2025 INSC 993), Pankaj Bansal vs. Union of India (2024) 7 SCC 576
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 Badal involved in the aforesaid case crime 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 with the following conditions :-
(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.
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.
May 6, 2026
Madhurima
(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
MADHURIMA GARG
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…