Allahabad High Court
ASLAMversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
Holding
The court held that the applicant is entitled to bail, finding the case fit for bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act without expressing an opinion on the merits.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, on behalf of Aslam, who was arrested on 24‑12‑2024 for alleged possession of 210 kg of ganja in connection with an NDPS case (Sections 8, 20, 29). The applicant claimed innocence, alleged non‑compliance with mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act (Sections 42, 50, 52A, 57) and the failure to be informed of the grounds of arrest as required by Article 22(1). The State argued that the seized narcotic was found in the applicant’s conscious possession and that Section 50 had been complied with, supported by an FSL report. The Court, after noting the co‑accused had already been granted bail and referring to the procedural requirements under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, held that the case was fit for bail and ordered release on a personal bond with conditions. The order expressly limited its effect to the bail application and did not comment on the merits of the trial.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita in view of alleged non‑compliance with mandatory NDPS provisions.
- Whether the failure to inform the accused of the grounds of arrest under Article 22(1) of the Constitution warrants bail.
- Whether the procedural requirements of Sections 42, 50, 52A and 57 of the NDPS Act were complied with in this case.
- Whether the bail granted to a co‑accused influences the bail decision for the applicant.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 483
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act — s. 20, 29, 37, 42, 50, 52, 57, 8
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- procedural compliance
- grounds of arrest
- Article 22
- sample collection
- FSL report
- co‑accused bail
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44562 of 2025
Aslam
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ankit Tiwari, Lalit Kumar Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 69
HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.
1. Heard Sri Lalit Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and
Sri Shiv Dutt Shukla, learned AGA for the State-respondents and perused
the record.
2. At the very outset, learned counsel for the applicant seek permission to
make necessary correction in the memo of application.
3. Prayer aforesaid is allowed. He may do so during course of day.
4. 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. 1074 of 2024, under
Section 8,20, 29 NDPS Act, registered at Police Station Kotwali Nagar,
District Banda, during pendency of the trial.
5. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that
applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case and
he has been languishing in jail since 24.12.2024. It is further submitted
that co-accused Manoj Kumar Mishra from whose possession 210kg
ganja in 43 packets is said to have been recovered has already been
granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated
13.1.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 29850 of 2025.
It is further submitted that mandatory provisions of Sections 42, 50, 52A,
57 of NDPS Act have not been complied with and grounds of arrest were
not disclosed to the applicant.. It is also submitted that the applicant
BAIL No. 44562 of 2025
2
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.
6. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of
bail to the applicant and it is submitted 210kg ganja in 43 packets has
been recovered from the conscious possession of the applicant and co-
accused Manoj Kumar Mishra. It is also submitted that FSL report is
available on record which corroborates that the recovered item was ganja.
It is further submitted that provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act has
been duly complied with.
7. As per FIR, it is alleged that the applicant and co-accused Manoj
Kumar Mishra are said to be carrying 210kg of ganja in 43 packets in a
vehicle, however, it is submitted that mandatory provisions of Sections
42, 50, 52A, 57 of NDPS Act have not been complied with. Co-accused
Manoj Kumar Mishra has already been granted bail by a co-ordinate
Bench of this Court. The applicant has been languishing in jail since
24.12.2024.
8. Rule 9 and 10 of Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue)
Notification New Delhi, the 23rd December, 2022 reads as under:-
"9. Samples to be drawn in the presence of Magistrate - After application
to the Magistrate under sub-section (2) of section 52A of the Act is made,
the Investigating Officer shall ensure that samples of the seized material
are drawn in the presence of the Magistrate and the same is certified by
the magistrate in accordance with the provisions of the said-sub-section.
10. Drawing the samples - (1) One sample, in duplicate, shall be drawn
from each package and container seized.
(2)When the packages and containers seized together are of identical size
and weight bearing identical marking and the contents of each package
give identical results on colour test by the drugs identification kit,
conclusively indicating that the packages are identical in all respects, the
packages and containers may carefully be bunched in lots of not more
than ten packages or containers, and for each such lot of packages and
BAIL No. 44562 of 2025
3
containers, one sample, in duplicate, shall be drawn:-
Provided that in the case of ganja, poppy straw and hashish (charas) it
may be bunched in lots of not more than fourty packages or containers.
(3) In case of drawing sample from a particular lot, it shall be ensured
that representative sample in equal quantity is taken from each package
or container of that lot and mixed together to make a composite whole
from which the samples are drawn for that lot."
9. In the decisions in Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India 2024 (7) SCC
576, Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) 2024(8) SCC 254
and Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana AIR 2025 SC 1388, it has been
held that the requirement of informing a person of grounds for arrest is a
mandatory requirement of Article 22(1) and also that the information of
the grounds for arrest must be provided to the arrested person in such a
manner that sufficient knowledge of the basic facts confuting the grounds
imparted and communicate to the arrested person effectively in the
language which he understands.
10. Upon considering the totality of facts, nature and the evidence
reflected from record and also taking into consideration the provision of
Section 37 of the NDPS Act 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.
11. Let the applicant- Aslam 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.
BAIL No. 44562 of 2025
4
(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.
12. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground
for cancellation of bail.
13. 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.
(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)
April 23, 2026
Abhishek
Digitally signed by :-
ABHISHEK AGRAHARI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…