Allahabad High Court
BALDEVversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- AVNISH SAXENA
Holding
The Court held that bail should be granted to the accused despite the NDPS charges, given the lack of independent witness and the nascent stage of the trial.
Summary
The accused Baldev applied for bail in a NDNDPS case (Crime No. 649 of 2025) where he was arrested with 1.2 kg of charas. He argued that the arrest lacked an independent witness and that the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act had not been complied with, while the trial was at a nascent stage with only one witness examined. The State opposed the bail. The Court noted the absence of an independent witness and the early stage of the trial, and relied on Supreme Court precedents emphasizing speedy adjudication of bail matters under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Consequently, the Court allowed the bail application, directing the accused to furnish a personal bond and two sureties. The order also directed the accused to cooperate for a speedy disposal of the case.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted to an accused under Sections 8 and 20 of the NDPS Act when the arrest was made without an independent witness.
- Whether the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act, particularly Section 37, preclude bail at the early stage of trial.
- Whether the Supreme Court’s observations in Mohd. Muslim alias Hussain v. State and Girish Gandhi v. State of Uttar Pradesh are applicable to the present bail application.
Legislation cited
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 20, 37, 8
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- Section 37
- drug possession
- independent witness
- trial stage
- personal bond
- sureties
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45623 of 2025
Baldev
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ajai Kumar, Sanjay Kumar Sharma
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 69
HON'BLE AVNISH SAXENA, J.
1. Sri Sanjay Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for applicant hands up
supplementary affidavit, the same is taken on record.
1A. Heard Sri Sharma, learned counsel for accused applicant and learned
A.G.A. for State.
2. The present bail application has been moved by the applicant accused-
Baldev to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 649 of 2025, under
Sections 8/20 of NDPS Act, P.S.- Katghar, District- Moradabad, during
the pendency of trial.
3. It is the contention of learned counsel for applicant that the accused
applicant has been implicated in FIR dated 12.10.2025 lodged by the
police against the accused/applicant while apprehending the applicant
with 1.2 Kgs. of Charas while he was on his way. It is contended by
learned counsel that the accused/applicant has criminal history of three
cases, wherein in all the cases he is on bail. The arrest and recovery has
been made in absence of independent witness. The mandatory provisions
of NDPS have not been complied with. The trial is continuing, which is
still at nascent stage as only PW-1 is examined by the court despite long
incarceration the accused/applicant is in jail since 12.10.2025. He seeks
enlargement of accused on bail.
4. Learned A.G.A. for State opposed the bail application.
5. This Court has taken into consideration the rival submissions made by
BAIL No. 45623 of 2025
2
learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Considering that arrest and recovery has been made in the absence of
independent witness, the mandatory provisions of NDPS Act is subject
matter of trial, which is still at nascent stage.
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
Abhishek Sri.
Digitally signed by :-
ABHISHEK RANJAN SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…