Allahabad High Court
RAJNEESH DWIVEDIversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
Holding
The Court allowed the bail application, finding the applicant eligible for bail under Section 37 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 Rajneesh Dwivedi, who was arrested in a NDPS case for allegedly transporting 69.51 kg of ganja. The applicant argued that the seizure did not comply with mandatory provisions of Section 52‑A of the NDPS Act and Section 105 of the BNSS because samples were not collected as per the prescribed rules and no videographic record existed. The State contended that the recovery was made before a gazetted officer and that the samples were taken in accordance with the rules. The Court examined the procedural deficiencies, the commercial quantity of the narcotic, the applicant’s clean record, and the precedent set by Union of India v. Shiv Shanker Kesari and Nadeem Ahmad v. State of West Bengal. Relying on Section 37 of the NDPS Act and the constitutional guarantee of liberty under Article 21, the Court held that the case was suitable for bail and ordered the applicant’s release on 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 69.51 kg of ganja complied with Section 52‑A of the NDPS Act and Section 105 of the BNSS regarding sample collection and videographic documentation.
- Whether the alleged commercial quantity of narcotics precludes the grant of bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
- Whether the applicant’s clean criminal record and prolonged pre‑trial detention justify bail despite the seriousness of the offence.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 105, 351, 483
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act — s. 20, 25, 29, 37, 52-A, 8
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- commercial quantity
- sample collection
- Section 52-A
- Section 37
- Article 21
- procedural compliance
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45353 of 2025
Rajneesh Dwivedi
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ajai Kumar Srivastava, Byas Kumar Prasad,
Juhi Srivastava, Mulayam Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 69
HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.
1. Heard Sri Byas Kumar Prasad, 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. 505 of 2025 under Section 8/20/25/29 NDPS Act, registered at
Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Mirzapur during pendency of the trial.
3. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that co-accused Rakesh
Verma has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 07.4.2026 passed in Crl.
Misc. Bail Application No. 10865 of 2026. It is further submitted that 69.51 kg of
Ganja is said to have been recovered from a vehicle which was being driven by the
applicant, however, mandatory provision of Section 52-A of NDPS Act and section
105 BNSS have not been complied with as samples have not been collected in
accordance with Rules 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the Rules published by the Union of India in
the official gazette nor the same have been certified by any Judicial Magistrate. It is
further submitted that applicant has no criminal history and he is languishing in jail
since 14.11.2025. 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 the alleged recovery has been made in the presence of a
gazetted officer and samples have been collected in accordance with the Rules. He
further submits that huge commercial quantity of Ganja has been recovered from a
vehicle which was being driven by the applicant.
5. As per the FIR, 69.51 kg of Ganja is said to have been recovered from a vehicle
which was being driven by the applicant, however, mandatory provision of Section
52-A of NDPS Act and section 105 BNSS have not been complied with as there is no
BAIL No. 45353 of 2025
2
videography of the alleged recovery and samples have not been collected in
accordance with Rules 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the Rules published by the Union of India in
the official gazette. Applicant has no criminal history and he is languishing in jail
since 14.11.2025.
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 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 Nadeem Ahmad vs. State of West Bengal 2025 LawSuit
(SC) 1134 (2025 INSC 993) 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 Rajneesh Dwivedi 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 14, 2026
Madhurima
(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
MADHURIMA GARG
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…