Allahabad High Court
RABBANversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
Holding
The court held that the applicant is entitled to bail.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, on behalf of Rabban, who was arrested in a case under Sections 8 and 22 of the NDPS Act for alleged possession of 270 g of Smack. The applicant contended that the prosecution had failed to comply with mandatory provisions of Sections 50 and 52‑A of the NDPS Act, as samples were not collected according to Rules 8‑11 and were not certified by a Judicial Magistrate. The State argued that the narcotic quantity was commercial and that all procedural requirements had been met. Relying on Section 37 of the NDPS Act and the Supreme Court’s decision in Union of India v. Shiv Shanker Kesari (2007), the Court found the case suitable for bail without expressing a view on the merits. Consequently, the Court granted bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties and imposed standard conditions for the applicant’s conduct during trial.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to an accused under the NDPS Act when a commercial quantity of narcotic is involved.
- Whether non‑compliance with the sample collection provisions of Sections 50 and 52‑A of the NDPS Act warrants bail.
- How Section 37 of the NDPS Act and the precedent set by Union of India v. Shiv Shanker Kesari influence bail decisions in NDPS cases.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 483
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act — s. 22, 37, 50, 52-A, 8
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- narcotics
- procedural lapse
- sample collection
- commercial quantity
- Section 37
- Supreme Court precedent
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15017 of 2026
Rabban
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Vijay Pratap Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 69
HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.
1. Heard Sri Vijay Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri BP 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. 76 of 2026 under Sections 8/22 NDPS Act, registered at Police
Station Titawi, District Muzaffar Nagar 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 270 gram of Smack is said to have been recovered
from a scooty in which the applicant and co-accused Danish were riding. It is further
submitted that mandatory provisions of Sections 50 and 52-A of NDPS Act have not
been complied with as samples have not been collected in accordance with Rules 8, 9,
10 and 11 of the Rules published by the Union of India in the official gazette nor the
same have been certified by any Judicial Magistrate. It is further submitted that co-
accused Danish has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 24.4.2026 passed
in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 13605 of 2026. It is further submitted that applicant
is languishing in jail since 21.3.2026 and he 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 commercial quantity of Smack has been recovered from a
scooty and applicant and co-accused Danish were riding the said scooty. He further
submits that mandatory provisions of NDPS Act have been followed.
5. As per the FIR, 270 gram of Smack is said to have been recovered from a scooty
and the applicant and co-accused Danish are said to be riding the said vehicle. It is
submitted that mandatory provisions of sections 52-A of NDPS Act have not been
complied with as samples have not been collected in accordance with Rules 8, 9, 10
BAIL No. 15017 of 2026
2
and 11 of the Rules published by the Union of India in the official gazette. Co-accused
Danish has been granted bail by this Court and applicant is languishing in jail since
21.3.2026.
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
the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in 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 Rabban 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 5, 2026
Madhurima
(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
MADHURIMA GARG
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…