Allahabad High Court
AMIRversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
Holding
The court held that bail is permissible under Section 37 of the NDPS Act despite the applicant’s prior minor offence and the confessional statement of a co‑accused.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for Amir, who was charged under Sections 8, 21 and 29 of the NDPS Act in a case registered in 2025. Amir claimed innocence, stating that no narcotics were recovered from his possession and that the co‑accused, whose confession implicated him, had already been granted bail. The State opposed bail, citing Amir’s prior minor offence. The Court examined the facts, the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, and the Supreme Court’s decision in Toofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2021), and concluded that bail was appropriate. Consequently, the bail application was allowed subject to a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties and several conditions to prevent tampering with evidence or intimidation of witnesses. The order expressly limited its scope to the bail question and did not comment on the merits of the trial.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted to an accused under Sections 8, 21 and 29 of the NDPS Act when no narcotics have been recovered from his possession.
- Whether the applicant’s prior minor offence disqualifies him from bail under the NDPS Act.
- How Section 37 of the NDPS Act and the precedent set by Toofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2021) apply to the bail decision.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 351
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 483
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act — s. 21, 29, 37, 8
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- Section 37
- confessional statement
- prior criminal history
- Toofan Singh precedent
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15510 of 2026
Amir
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ankit Srivastava, Ch. Dil Nisar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 69
HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.
1. Heard Sri Choudhary Dilnisar, learned counsel for the applicant
and Sri B.P. 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.
608 of 2025, under Section 8/21/29 NDPS Act, registered at Police
Station Nakur, District Saharanpur during pendency of the trial.
3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that
applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this
case and he has been languishing in jail since 15.4.2026. It is
further submitted that co-accused Shoban from whose possession
270gram of smack is said to have been recovered, has already
been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order
dated 25.2.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.
4813 of 2026. It is further submitted that nothing has been
recovered from the possession of the applicant and his name has
surfaced in the confessional statement of co-accused Shoban
during investigation. It is further submitted that applicant is having
no criminal history of NDPS. 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
BAIL No. 15510 of 2026
2
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 it is submitted that the applicant is
having criminal history of one case relating to the some minor
offence.
5. The name of the applicant has surfaced in the confessional
statement of co-accused Shoban and from whose possession 270
gram of smack is said to have been recovered and the said co-
accused has already been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of
this Court and nothing is said to have been recovered from the
possession of the applicant. The applicant is having criminal
history of one case relating to some minor offence.
6. Upon considering the totality of facts, nature and the evidence
reflected from record and also 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 Toofan Singh vs. State of
Tamil Nadu, 2021 (4) SCC 1 and 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- Amir 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
BAIL No. 15510 of 2026
3
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.
(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)
May 7, 2026
Abhishek
Digitally signed by :-
ABHISHEK AGRAHARI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…