Allahabad High Court

ROVINversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 8 September 2026
Bench: KRISHAN PAHAL

Holding

The Court held that, prima facie, the case is fit for bail and allowed the bail application.

Summary

The applicant, Rovin, was arrested in connection with Crime No. 376 of 2026 for alleged possession of 130 grams of alprazolam powder and charged under several provisions of the Indian Penal Code, the Information Technology Act, and the NDPS Act. He contended that he was falsely implicated, that the quantity of contraband was inflated, and that the mandatory provisions of Section 52A of the NDPS Act were not complied with. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the offences and the alleged non‑compliance of statutory requirements. The Court, after reviewing the material and hearing both sides, noted the lack of compliance with Section 52A but, without delving into the merits, found the case prima facie suitable for bail. Accordingly, the bail application was allowed subject to a personal bond, two sureties, and conditions not to tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses. The order emphasized that any breach of conditions would lead to cancellation of bail and would not affect the trial on merits.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted in a case involving alleged possession of a commercial quantity of a narcotic drug under the NDPS Act.
Whether non‑compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 52A of the NDPS Act bars the grant of bail.
Whether the seriousness of the offences under the IPC and IT Act precludes bail.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2)
Information Technology Act — s. 66-C, 66-D
NDPS Act — s. 21, 22, 52A

Subjects

bail
NDPS Act
Section 52A
drug possession
false implication
preliminary hearing
bail conditions

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30707 of 2026

Rovin
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Shamshad Ahmad
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 68
(Sr. No.127 out of 318)

HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

1. List has been revised. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for
the applicant is taken on record.

2. Heard Sri Shamshad Ahmad, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri R.P.
Patel, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material
placed on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.376 of 2026, under Section 318(4),
336(3), 338, 340(2) BNS, Section 66-C, 66-D of I.T. Act and Section 21/22
of NDPS Act, Police Station- Govardhan, District- Mathura, during the
pendency of trial.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is
absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with
a view to cause unnecessary harassment and to victimize him. A false
recovery of 130 gram of alprazolam powder has been foisted on the
applicant. The allegations are per se false and the quantity of the recovered
contraband has deliberately been inflated by the police just to make it fall
within commercial category.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that there is no
compliance of mandatory provision of Section 52A of the N.D.P.S. Act. The
criminal history assigned to the applicant has been explained. The applicant
is languishing in jail since 3.8.2026. The applicant is ready to cooperate with
BAIL No. 30707 of 2026
2

trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty
of bail.

6. Learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application.

7. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusal of record and
considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment as well as
totality of facts and circumstances coupled with the fact that there is no
compliance of mandatory provision of Section 52A of the NDPS Act,
without commenting on the merits of the case, prima facie, I find it a fit case
for bail. The bail application is allowed.

8. Let the applicant- Rovin, be released on bail in the aforementioned case
crime on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of
the court concerned, subject to verification of sureties, with the conditions
that he shall not tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses and shall
appear before the trial court as required.

9. Breach of any condition shall entail cancellation of bail. The observations
herein shall not affect the trial on merits.

(Krishan Pahal,J.)
September 9, 2026
Vikas Verma

Digitally signed by :-
VIKAS VERMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…