Allahabad High Court
SHIV PRASAD MISHRAversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
Holding
The court held that bail is appropriate in the present circumstances and allowed the bail application.
Summary
Shiv Prasad Mishra applied for bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in a case where 364.4 kg of ganja was seized from a truck and he was found sitting beside the driver, though no contraband was recovered from his conscious possession. The prosecution argued the large quantity of narcotics and his presence in the vehicle warranted denial of bail, while the defense highlighted the lack of direct possession, the bail already granted to co‑accused Hasan Ali, and Mishra's clean criminal record. The court examined the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the constitutional guarantee of liberty under Article 21, and a Supreme Court precedent (Mohd. Muslim alias Hussain v. State) emphasizing that procedural rigour should not impede bail. Finding the case suitable for bail without commenting on the merits, the court ordered his release on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties and imposed standard conditions. The order clarified that it is limited to the bail application and does not affect the trial court’s independent adjudication.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to an accused under Sections 8 and 20 of the NDPS Act when no contraband is found in his conscious possession.
- Whether the seriousness of the offence and the quantity of narcotics seized preclude the grant of bail despite the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act and Article 21 of the Constitution.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- Section 37
- Article 21
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
- contraband
- criminal procedure
- presumption of innocence
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34068 of 2025
Shiv Prasad Mishra
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Krishna Nand Singh, Priti Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 69
HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.
1. Heard Sri Krishna Nand Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri B.P. Maurya,
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. 151 of 2024 under Sections 8/20 NDPS Act, registered at
Police Station Chopan, District Sonbhadra during pendency of the trial.
3. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that co-accused Hasan Ali
has already been granted bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated
05.8.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.6718 of 2025. It is further
submitted that as per the FIR, 364.4 kg of Ganja is said to have been recovered from a
truck and the applicant was found sitting next to the driver in the said truck. It is
further submitted that nothing has been recovered from conscious possession of the
applicant and it is alleged that the recovered contraband was being transported in the
said truck. It is further submitted that applicant has no criminal history, however, one
case has been lodged against him after lodging of the present case and he has been
languishing in jail since 03.8.2024. 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 huge commercial quantity of Ganja has been recovered
from a truck and the applicant was found sitting in the said truck.
5. As per the FIR, 364.4 kg of Ganja is said to have been recovered from a truck and
the applicant was found sitting next to the driver in the said truck. It is further
submitted that nothing has been recovered from conscious possession of the applicant.
co-accused Hasan Ali has already been granted bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this
BAIL No. 34068 of 2025
2
Court. In the case of Mohd. Muslim alias Hussain Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2023)
18 SCC 166], Hon'ble Apex Court observed and held that the rigour under Section 37
of N.D.P.S. Act would not come in the way, when the Court deals with the liberty of a
person, as more the rigour, quicker ought to be the adjudication.
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, 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 Shiv Prasad Mishra 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 12, 2026
Madhurima
(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
MADHURIMA GARG
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…