Allahabad High Court
JAVEDversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
Holding
The Court allowed the bail application, finding the case fit for bail despite alleged non‑compliance with Section 50 and the applicant's criminal history.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, on behalf of Javed, who was charged under Sections 8 and 20 of the NDPS Act for possession of 135 grams of charas, a quantity below the commercial threshold. The applicant argued that the mandatory requirement of Section 50 of the NDPS Act—recovery in the presence of a gazetted officer—was not complied with and that he was falsely implicated, despite a history of 11 pending cases. The State contended that the procedural requirements were satisfied, including the applicant's consent to the search. The Court, referring to Section 37 of the NDPS Act and Supreme Court precedents (Union of India v. Shiv Shanker Kesari and Nadeem Ahmad v. State of West Bengal), held that the circumstances warranted bail, emphasizing the constitutional guarantee of liberty under Article 21. Consequently, bail was granted on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties and several 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 when the mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act have not been complied with.
- Whether the quantity of narcotic seized being below commercial quantity and the applicant's prior criminal history preclude bail.
- Whether procedural compliance with Section 50 is a prerequisite for bail in NDPS cases.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 351, 483
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act — s. 20, 37, 50, 8
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- Section 50 compliance
- commercial quantity
- Article 21
- procedural safeguards
- criminal history
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16504 of 2026
Javed
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sayeed Saif Ullah, Sufia Saba
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 69
HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.
1. Heard Sri Riyaz Hussain, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Sayeed Said Ullah, learned
counsel for the applicant, Sri Shiv Dutt Shukla, 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. 107 of 2026 under Section 8/20 NDPS Act, registered at Police
Station Mirzapur, District Saharanpur 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 135 gram of Charas is said to have been recovered
from the possession of the applicant and 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 the alleged recovered
contraband is much below the commercial quantity. It is further submitted that
applicant has criminal history of 11 cases in which, he is on bail and he is languishing
in jail since 07.4.2026. 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 mandatory provisions of NDPS Act have been complied
with and consent of the applicant was obtained before conducting his personal search.
5. As per the FIR, 135 gram of Charas, which is much below the commercial
quantity, 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 has criminal history of 11 cases in which, he is on bail and
BAIL No. 16504 of 2026
2
he is languishing in jail since 07.4.2026.
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) the larger mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of
India 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 Javed 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…