Allahabad High Court
AWADHESH LODHIversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
Holding
The Court granted bail to the applicant, finding the case fit for release despite the alleged procedural lapse.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, on behalf of Awadhesh Lodhi, who was arrested in a case under Sections 21 and 22 of the NDPS Act for allegedly possessing 160 g of Alprazolam. The applicant contended that the seizure violated Section 50 of the NDPS Act because it was not made in the presence of a gazetted officer, and argued that he was falsely implicated and had been in custody since 12 March 2026. The State argued that the mandatory provision of Section 50 had been complied with through the applicant’s consent to the search. The Court, referring to Section 37 of the NDPS Act and the Supreme Court’s decision in Union of India v. Shiv Shanker Kesari, held that the procedural lapse did not preclude bail and that the case was suitable for release on bail. Accordingly, 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 stages.
Issues considered
- Whether the alleged non‑compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act necessitates denial of bail.
- Whether bail can be granted under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita for an NDPS offence pending trial.
- Whether the procedural lapse in the seizure of the alleged narcotic substance justifies the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 351
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 483
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act — s. 21, 22, 37, 50
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- Section 50 compliance
- procedural lapse
- pre‑trial detention
- court discretion
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16499 of 2026
Awadhesh Lodhi
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Shubham
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 69
HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.
1. Heard Sri Shubham, learned counsel for the applicant, 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. 174 of 2026 under Sections 21/22 NDPS Act, registered at
Police Station Kotwali, District Mathura 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 160 gram of Alprazolam is said to have been
recovered from the possession of the applicant, however, mandatory provision of
section 50 of NDPS Act has 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
is languishing in jail since 12.3.2026 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 mandatory provision of section 50 of NDPS Act has been
complied with as consent of the applicant was obtained before conducting his personal
search.
5. As per the FIR, 160 gram of Alprazolam is said to have been recovered from the
possession of the applicant. However, it is submitted that mandatory provision of
section 50 of NDPS Act has not been complied with as the alleged recovery has not
been made in the presence of any gazetted officer. Applicant is languishing in jail
since 12.3.2026.
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,
BAIL No. 16499 of 2026
2
2007 (7) SCC 798 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 Awadhesh Lodhi 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 14, 2026
Madhurima
(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
MADHURIMA GARG
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…