Allahabad High Court
ARYANversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
Holding
The Court allowed the bail application, granting bail to the accused under the conditions specified.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for an accused in an NDPS case involving 1.70 kg and 1.60 kg of ganja recovered from the accused and a further 94.8 kg recovered from an abandoned factory. The applicant argued that the co‑accused had already been granted bail, that he had no prior criminal record, and that the mandatory procedures under Section 52‑A of the NDPS Act for taking samples had not been complied with. The State opposed bail on the ground of the commercial quantity of the seized narcotic. The Court, relying on Section 37 of the NDPS Act and 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), held that the applicant was entitled to bail despite the procedural lapse. The bail was granted on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties and a series of conditions, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for an offence under the NDPS Act involving a commercial quantity of ganja.
- Whether non‑compliance with the sample‑taking requirements of Section 52‑A of the NDPS Act bars the grant of bail.
- Whether the applicant’s lack of prior criminal record and the pendency of trial justify bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 483
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act — s. 20, 351, 37, 52-A, 8
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- cannabis
- commercial quantity
- Section 52-A
- Section 37
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
- pendency of trial
- court conditions
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15048 of 2026
Aryan
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sanjeev Kumar Sharma
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 69
HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.
1. Heard Sri Sanjeev Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Manoj
Gautam, 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. 19 of 2026 under Section 8/20 NDPS Act, registered at Police
Station Rania, District Kanpur Dehat during pendency of the trial.
3. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that co-accused Anuj Kumar
has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 27.4.2026 passed in
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.13873 of 2026. It is further submitted that 1.70 kg
and 1.60 kg of Ganja is said to have been recovered from the possession of the
applicant and co-accused and on their confession, 94.8 kg of Ganja is said to have
been recovered from an abandoned factory. It is further submitted that mandatory
provisions of Sections 52-A of NDPS Act have not been complied with. It is further
submitted that applicant has no criminal history and he is languishing in jail since
30.1.2026. 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 Ganja is said to have been
recovered on pointing out of the applicant and co-accused from an abandoned factory.
5. As per the FIR, 1.70 kg and 1.60 kg of Ganja is said to have been recovered from a
mopet and applicant and co-accused are said to have riding the said mopet. It is
submitted that on their confession, 94.8 kg of Ganja is said to have been recovered
from an abandoned factory, however, it is submitted that mandatory provisions of
Sections 52-A of NDPS Act have not been complied with as samples of the recovered
contraband have not been taken in accordance with Rules 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the Rules
BAIL No. 15048 of 2026
2
published by the Union of India in the official gazette. Applicant has no criminal
history and he is languishing in jail since 30.1.2026.
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 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 Aryan 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…