Allahabad High Court
ALOK PATELversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- AVNISH SAXENA
Holding
The Court granted bail to the accused, holding that the procedural deficiencies and lack of independent evidence warranted his release.
Summary
Alok Patel applied for bail in a NDPS case (Crime No. 113 of 2026) where the FIR alleged that a car carrying 28.362 kg of ganja was intercepted. While four co‑accused were arrested on the spot and later granted bail, Patel was not arrested at the scene and was identified only through their statements. The defence argued that the arrest and recovery lacked independent witnesses and that mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act were not complied with. The State opposed bail, but the Court noted the absence of independent evidence and the Supreme Court’s guidance that the rigour of Section 37 should not impede liberty. Relying on precedents, the Court held that Patel was entitled to bail and ordered his release on personal bond and sureties.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted to the accused under Sections 8, 20 and 25 of the NDPS Act despite the alleged non‑compliance with mandatory provisions.
- Whether the lack of independent witnesses and the manner of arrest justify granting bail.
- Whether the rigour of Section 37 of the NDPS Act precludes bail in this circumstance.
Legislation cited
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act — s. 20, 25, 37, 8
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- drug trafficking
- mandatory provisions
- independent witness
- Section 37
- liberty
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34741 of 2026
Alok Patel
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Jay Kumar Pandey, Mohan Lal Pandey,
Nishi Kant Chaturvedi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 69
HON'BLE AVNISH SAXENA, J.
1. Heard Sri Mohan Lal Pandey, learned counsel for the accused applicant
and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The present bail application has been moved by the applicant accused-
Alok Patel to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 113 of 2026, under
Sections 8/20 /25NDPS Act, P.S.- Gopiganj, District- Bhadohi during the
pendency of trial.
3. It is the contention of learned counsel for accused applicant that the
FIR has been lodged by the police on 19.3.2026 against eight named
persons including the accused applicant with the allegation that the police
party intercepted a Maruti Suzuki Car containing 28.362 kg. Ganja from
the car. It is further contended that four accused persons Dhirendra Kumar
Patel, Mukesh Kumar Patel, Shyam Kumar Bhartiya and Ashish Patel
were arrested by the police on the spot in the car. The name of
the accused applicant has been taken by these accused persons with the
role that accused applicant was driving the car and when intercepted by
the police, he has sprinted away. It is further contended that the co-
accused, who were arrested on the spot, have already been granted bail by
the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in orders dated 28.4.2026, 1.5.2026
and 29.4.2026. It is further contended that the arrest and recovery has
been made in absence of independent witness. The mandatory provisions
of NDPS Act has not been complied with. The charge sheet has been
submitted. The applicant has five cases criminal history, wherein, in four
BAIL No. 34741 of 2026
2
cases, he is on bail and in one case, the bail application is pending. The
applicant is languishing in jail since 6.8.2026. He seeks enlargement of
accused on bail.
4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail application.
5. This Court has taken into consideration the rival submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Considering that the accused applicant has not been arrested on the spot
and his name has been figured out from the statement of the co-accused,
who have already been granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this
Court; the arrest and recovery has been made in absence of independent
witnesses and mandatory provisions of NDPS Act has not been complied,
which is subject matter of trial, the accused applicant is entitled to be
enlarged on bail.
7. In the case of Mohd. Muslim alias Hussain Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)
[(2023) 18 SCC 166] the Apex Court observed and held that the rigour
under Section 37 of NDPS 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. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances
of the case, the bail application is allowed.
8. The accused/applicant be released on bail in the aforesaid case on
furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the
satisfaction of court concerned in view of observation made by the
Supreme Court in its dictums of Girish Gandhi Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh [(2024) 10 SCC 674] and Policy Strategy for grant of bail in
re [(2024)10SCC 685].
9. The accused-applicant shall cooperate in judicial process for fair and
speedy disposal.
(Avnish Saxena,J.)
September 30, 2026
Krishna*
Digitally signed by :-
KRISHNA KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…