Allahabad High Court
IZHAARversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
Bail is granted to the applicant as the case for bail is made out notwithstanding his criminal antecedents and the procedural defect in the recovery memo.
Summary
The applicant, Izhaar, sought bail in a NDNDPS case (Crime No. 171 of 2026) charged under Sections 8, 21, 29 and 60 of the NDPS Act. He contended that he was falsely implicated and that the recovery memo lacked the mandatory signature of the Tehsildar, rendering the seizure procedurally defective. The State opposed bail, citing the applicant’s two prior criminal cases, but the court noted that the antecedents had been satisfactorily explained. The court held that an accused cannot be detained solely on past convictions when bail criteria are otherwise met, and that the missing Tehsildar signature raised doubts about the propriety of the investigation. Consequently, the court granted bail subject to a personal bond, two sureties, and conditions not to tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused despite prior criminal history.
- Whether the absence of the Tehsildar's signature on the recovery memo under Section 50 of the NDPS Act invalidates the seizure and affects bail considerations.
Legislation cited
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act — s. 21, 29, 50, 60, 8
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- criminal antecedents
- recovery memo
- signature defect
- trial proceedings
- sureties
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 20531 of 2026
Izhaar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sumit Goyal
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 68
(Sl. No.92 out of 98)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised. Rejoinder affidavit filed by learned counsel for the
applicant is taken on record.
2. The counter affidavit filed by learned A.G.A. in Registry is not on
record. The photocopy thereof has been provided by him and is taken on
record.
3. Heard Sri Sumit Goyal, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri A.K.
Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on
record.
4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 171 of 2026, under Sections
8/21/29/60 NDPS Act, Police Station Jhinjaha, District Shamli, during the
pendency of trial.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is
absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. On
the recovery memo, there is no signature of concerned Tehsildar before
whom the said search was made, as the FIR does not indicate his signature,
although it is true that signature of the Tehsildar is mandatory in the
recovery memo u/s 50 of the NDPS Act, as such, complete exercise is
sham.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that there is a
criminal history of two cases assigned to the applicant, which stands
BAIL No. 20531 of 2026
2
explained. The applicant is languishing in jail since 24.4.2026 and he is
ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he
will not misuse the liberty of bail.
7. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application but the
submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant could not be
disputed.
8. This Court is of the view that if a case for bail is otherwise made out,
an accused cannot be kept incarcerated solely on account of his criminal
antecedents. In the instant case, the criminal history assigned to the
applicant has been properly explained.
9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into
consideration the fact that there is no signature of the concerned Tehsildar on
the recovery memo, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the
case, prima-facie the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a
case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
10. Let the applicant- Izhaar, who is involved in aforementioned case crime
be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each
in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to
verification of sureties, with the condition that he shall not tamper with
evidence or intimidate witnesses and shall appear before the trial court as
required.
11. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail.
12. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant
shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent
opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
September 14, 2026
Shalini
Digitally signed by :-
SHALINI JAISWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…