Allahabad High Court
RASHIDversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
Holding
The Court held that the applicant is entitled to bail despite the alleged procedural lapse and the quantity involved.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, on behalf of Rashid, who was arrested in a case under Sections 8 and 22 of the NDPS Act for allegedly possessing 130 g of Alprazolam powder. The applicant argued that the seizure violated Section 50 of the NDPS Act because it was not made in the presence of a gazetted officer, and he had no prior criminal record, having been in custody since 3 March 2026. The State opposed bail, contending that the quantity was commercial and that the search was conducted with the applicant’s consent. The Court, referring to Section 37 of the NDPS Act and the Supreme Court’s decision in Union of India v. Shiv Shanker Kesari, concluded that the procedural lapse and the applicant’s circumstances warranted bail. Consequently, the bail application was allowed subject to a personal bond of Rs 50,000 with two sureties and several conditions aimed at preventing witness tampering and ensuring the applicant’s presence at trial.
Issues considered
- Whether the alleged non‑compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act justifies granting bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
- Whether the quantity of Alprazolam (130 g) constitutes a ‘commercial quantity’ that would preclude bail.
- Whether the procedural lapse in the seizure outweighs the seriousness of the offence for bail considerations.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 351, 483
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act — s. 22, 37, 50, 8
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- Section 50 procedural compliance
- commercial quantity
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
- Supreme Court precedent
- witness tampering
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15018 of 2026
Rashid
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Brijesh Kumar Sharma
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 69
HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.
1. Heard Sri Brijesh Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri BP Maurya,
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. 61 of 2026 under Section 8/22 NDPS Act, registered at Police
Station Ankur Vihar, District Ghaziabad during pendency of the trial.
3. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that 130 gram of Alprazolam
powder is said to have been recovered from the possession of the applicant 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. It is
further submitted that applicant has no criminal history and he is languishing in jail
since 03.3.2026. 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 commercial quantity of Alprazolam powder has been
recovered from the applicant and his consent was obtained before personal search.
5. As per the FIR, 130 gram of Alprazolam powder 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 no criminal history
and he is languishing in jail since 03.3.2026.
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
BAIL No. 15018 of 2026
2
a fit case for bail. Hence, the present bail application is ALLOWED.
7. Let the applicant Rashid 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…