Allahabad High Court
ANIL SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
Holding
The court held that bail is permissible despite the procedural lapse and the applicant’s criminal history, applying the principles of Section 37 of the NDPS Act and the precedent of Union of India v. Shiv Shanker Kesari.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, on behalf of Anil Singh, who was arrested in a NDPS case for allegedly possessing 40 g of Alprazolam. The applicant claimed false implication and argued that the mandatory requirement of Section 50 of the NDPS Act—recovery of the narcotic in the presence of a gazetted officer—was not complied with. The State opposed bail, highlighting the applicant’s extensive criminal record of 29 cases, including two NDPS offences, and labeling him a habitual offender. Referring to Section 37 of the NDPS Act and the Supreme Court’s decision in Union of India v. Shiv Shanker Kesari (2007), the Court found the case suitable for bail without commenting on the merits. Consequently, bail was granted on a personal bond of Rs 50,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions restricting intimidation of witnesses, attendance at trial dates, and no adjournment requests, with breach constituting grounds for cancellation.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita for an offence under the NDPS Act where Section 50 procedural requirements were allegedly not fulfilled.
- Whether the applicant’s extensive criminal history and alleged habitual offending preclude the grant of bail.
- Whether the precedent set in Union of India v. Shiv Shanker Kesari (2007) applies to the present bail application.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 351, 483
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act — s. 21, 22, 37, 50, 8
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- Section 50 procedural compliance
- habitual offender
- preliminary hearing
- court conditions
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29971 of 2025
Anil Singh
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Amarjeet Yadav, Kalp Dev Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 69
HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.
1. Supplementary affidavit filed today by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on
record.
2. Heard Sri Kalp Dev Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Manoj Gautam,
learned AGA for the State-respondents and perused the record.
3. 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. 60 of 2024 under Section 8/21/22 NDPS Act, registered at
Police Station G.R.P., District Mau during pendency of the trial.
4. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has been
falsely implicated in this case and he has been languishing in jail since 03.11.2024. It
is further submitted that 40 gram of Alprazolam powder is said to have been recovered
from the possession of the applicant and mandatory provisions of Section 50 of NDPS
Act have not been complied with. It is further submitted that applicant has criminal
history of 29 cases including two cases under NDPS Act which has been explained in
the supplementary affidavit filed today. 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.
5. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the
applicant and submits that applicant has long criminal history and he is habitual
offender.
6. As per the FIR, 40 gram of Alprazolam powder which is much below the
commercial quantity is said to have been recovered from the possession of the
applicant. It is submitted that mandatory provisions of Section 50 of NDPS Act have
not been complied with as the alleged recovery has not been made in the presence of a
gazetted officer. Applicant has criminal history of 29 cases including two cases under
BAIL No. 29971 of 2025
2
NDPS Act which has been explained in the supplementary affidavit filed today.
7. 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 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.
8. Let the applicant Anil Singh 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.
9. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail.
10. 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 7, 2026
Madhurima
(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
MADHURIMA GARG
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…