Allahabad High Court

HARBIRversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 10 September 2026
Bench: KRISHAN PAHAL

Holding

The court held that the applicant is entitled to bail as the prosecution failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Sections 52‑A and 57 of the NDPS Act, establishing a prima facie case for bail.

Summary

The High Court of Allahabad considered a bail application filed by Harbir in criminal case No.130 of 2026 under Sections 8, 15 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985. The applicant contended that he was falsely implicated, alleging that two separate recoveries of poppy straw (402 kg and 602 kg) were fabricated and that the mandatory provisions of Sections 52‑A and 57 of the NDPS Act had not been complied with. The State, represented by the Additional Government Advocate, opposed bail. After examining the record, the court observed that, without delving into the merits, the prosecution had failed to satisfy the statutory requirements of Sections 52‑A and 57, and the applicant had made out a prima facie case for bail. Consequently, the court ordered the release of the applicant on personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions of non‑tampering with evidence, non‑intimidation of witnesses and regular appearance before the trial court. The order expressly stated that any breach would lead to cancellation of bail and would not prejudice the trial on merits.

Issues considered

Whether the applicant is entitled to bail despite the pending NDPS trial
Whether the mandatory provisions of Sections 52‑A and 57 of the NDPS Act have been complied with
Whether a prima facie case for bail exists in the present circumstances

Legislation cited

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 15, 29, 52-A, 57, 8

Subjects

bail
NDPS Act
Section 52-A
Section 57
narcotic drugs
poppy straw
false recovery
sureties
court conditions

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32420 of 2026

Harbir
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ajay Kumar, Anup Rai
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 68
(Sr. No.41 out of 76)

HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

1. List has been revised. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on
record.

2. Heard Sri Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anit Kumar
Shukla, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on
record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.130 of 2026, under Section
8/15/29 of The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985,
Police Station- Sarsawa, District Saharanpur, 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. Earlier, a false
recovery of 402 kg of poppy straw was foisted on the applicant, and
subsequently, the instant recovery of 602 kg of poppy straw has been foisted
on him. There is no compliance of the mandatory provisions of Sections 52-
A and 57 of the N.D.P.S. Act. The criminal history assigned to the applicant
stands explained. The applicant is languishing in jail since 23.04.2026. In
case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

5. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into
BAIL No. 32420 of 2026
2

consideration that there is no compliance with the mandatory provisions of
Sections 52-A and 57 of the N.D.P.S. Act, 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.

7. Let the applicant- Harbir, 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.

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

(Krishan Pahal,J.)
September 11, 2026
(Ravi Kant)

Digitally signed by :-
RAVI KANT
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…