Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

AFZALversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided

Holding

The Court allowed the bail application, finding the case fit for bail despite the dispute over compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, on behalf of Afzal, who was arrested in a NDPS case (Sections 8 and 20) for alleged possession of 1.5 kg of charas. The applicant contended that the seizure violated Section 50 of the NDPS Act because it was not made in the presence of a gazetted officer, and claimed false implication. The State argued that the mandatory provisions of Section 50 were complied with as the applicant’s consent was obtained before the search. The Court examined the facts, the statutory provisions, and the precedent set by Union of India v. Shiv Shanker Kesari (2007). Without expressing an opinion on the merits, the Court held that the case was suitable for bail and ordered the applicant’s release on a personal bond with conditions. The order expressly limited its scope to the bail application and did not prejudice the trial court’s future findings.

Issues considered

  • Whether the seizure of charas complied with Section 50 of the NDPS Act requiring the presence of a gazetted officer.
  • Whether the applicant is entitled to bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in view of the alleged procedural lapse and the nature of the offence.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • bail
  • NDPS Act
  • Section 50 compliance
  • seizure procedure
  • gazetted officer
  • criminal procedure
  • preliminary hearing

Judgment

                HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

          CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44992 of 2025

Afzal
                                                                        .....Applicant(s)
                                        Versus
State of U.P.
                                                                  .....Opposite Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)            :   Ankit Srivastava, Ch. Dil Nisar, Dhiraj Kumar
                                        Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)       :   G.A.

Court No. - 69
                    HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.

1. Heard Sri Dhiraj Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Radhey
Shyam, 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. 317 of 2025 under Section 8/20 NDPS Act, registered at Police
Station Chilkana, District Saharanpur during pendency of the trial.

3. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has been
falsely implicated in this case and 1.5 kg of charas is said to have been recovered from
the possession of the applicant and mandatory provisions of sections 50 of NDPS Act
have not been complied with as the alleged recovery has not been made in the
presence of any gazetted officer. It is further submitted that criminal history of the
applicant has been explained in the memo of application and he is languishing in jail
since 13.11.2025. 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 mandatory provisions of section 50 of NDPS Act have been
complied with as consent of the applicant was obtained before conducting his personal
search.

5. As per the FIR, 1.5 kg of charas is said to have been recovered from the possession
of the applicant, however, it is submitted that mandatory provisions of sections 50 of
NDPS Act have not been complied with as the alleged recovery has not been made in
the presence of any gazetted officer. Criminal history of the applicant has been
explained in the memo of application and he is languishing in jail since 13.11.2025.

6. Upon considering the totality of facts, nature and evidence reflected from record,
                                                                                                     BAIL No. 44992 of 2025
                                                                         2

                                    taking into consideration the provision of Section 37 of the NDPS Act and in view of
                                    the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India vs. Shiv Shanker Kesari,
                                    2007 (7) SCC 798 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 Afzal 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 7, 2026
                                    Madhurima
                                                                                            (Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
MADHURIMA GARG
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.