Allahabad High Court
MUKESHversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA
Holding
Bail must be granted unless specific material reasons exist to believe the accused will flee, tamper with evidence, or repeat the offence, reflecting the principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed under section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for Mukesh, who was arrested in an NDPS case alleging possession of 620 grams of diazepam, a quantity marginally above the commercial threshold. The applicant argued that the seizure was not substantiated by independent witnesses and that the prosecution failed to comply with sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act, including the lack of a chemical analyst report. The State contended that the accused could not be deemed innocent at the pre‑trial stage and might repeat the alleged offence if released. Citing the principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception, and referring to the Supreme Court’s rulings in State of Rajasthan v. Balchand and Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor, the Court held that there were no sufficient grounds to deny bail. Consequently, the Court ordered the release of the accused on bail subject to a personal bond, two sureties, and conditions prohibiting witness tampering, further criminal activity, and unnecessary adjournments.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted under section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in an NDPS case where the alleged quantity is marginally above commercial quantity.
- Whether alleged procedural lapses under sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act justify denial of bail.
- Whether the accused poses a risk of fleeing, tampering with evidence, or committing further offences that would warrant refusal of bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 483
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 42, 50, 8/22
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- commercial quantity
- procedural lapse
- Article 21
- presumption of innocence
- sureties
- court conditions
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44686 of 2025
Mukesh
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Geetam Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 68
HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Arimardan Yadav, learned
A.G.A. for the State and perused the record of the case.
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. 484 of 2025, under Section 08/22 of
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station-
Dholna, District- Kasganj.
Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that 620 gram of Diazepam
is alleged to have been recovered from the possession of the applicant,
which is marginally above from the commercial quantity. In fact no such
recovery was effected from the applicant. It is further submitted that since
such recovery is not supported by independent witness, possibility of his
false implication in the crime cannot be ruled out. It is next contended that in
the present case the prosecution has failed to follow strictly the provisions of
Section 42 & 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act. There is no report of chemical analyst.
It is also argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely
implicated in the present crime with a view to cause unnecessary harassment
and victimize him. The applicant, who is in jail since 23.11.2025 having
criminal history of two cases, which is explained in para no. 13 of the bail
application. In case the applicant is released on bail he will not misuse the
liberty of bail.
Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant by
BAIL No. 44686 of 2025
2
contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial
stage who is involved in supplying contraband, therefore, the applicant does
not deserve any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail he will
again indulge in similar activity.
It is settled position of law that bail is the rule and committal to jail is an
exception in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Balchand @ Baliay (1977) 4
SCC 308, the Apex Court observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the
personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution and opined para 2 "The basic rule may perhaps be tersely put as
bail, not jail, except where there are circumstances suggestive of fleeing
from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in
the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like, by the
petitioner who seeks enlargement on bail from the court. We do. not intend
to be exhaustive but only illustrative." and considering the facts of the case
and keeping in mind, the ratio of the Apex Court's judgment in the case of
Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors vs Public Prosecutor, High Court Of
Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 429, larger mandate of Article 21 of the
constitution of India, the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in
support thereof, the severity of punishment which conviction will entail, the
character of the accused-applicant, circumstances which are peculiar to the
accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the
trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the
larger interest of the public/ State and other circumstances, but without
expressing any opinion on the merits, I am of the view that it is a fit case for
grant of bail.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits, let the accused-applicant
Mukesh involved in abovesaid case crime be released on bail on his
furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that :-
1. The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/
pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.
2. The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any
adjournment.
BAIL No. 44686 of 2025
3
3. The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime
after being released on bail.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and
sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
(Ashutosh Srivastava,J.)
March 19, 2026
Vibha Singh
Digitally signed by :-
VIBHA SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…