Allahabad High Court
RAJESH MAHRAversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The Court held that bail must be granted as the mandatory provisions of Section 52-A were not complied with, establishing a prima facie case for bail.
Summary
The Allahabad High Court considered a bail application filed by Rajesh Mahra, who was arrested under Sections 8 and 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. The applicant claimed innocence, alleged that the recovery was a sham, and argued that the mandatory provisions of Section 52-A of the NDPS Act had not been complied with. The State opposed bail, contending that Section 50 of the NDPS Act was satisfied despite the lapse in Section 52-A compliance. After reviewing the material and hearing both sides, the Court noted the absence of compliance with Section 52-A and, without delving into the merits, found that the applicant had made a prima facie case for bail. Consequently, the Court granted bail on condition of a personal bond, two sureties, and compliance with standard bail conditions, warning that any breach would lead to cancellation.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted in an NDPS case when the mandatory provisions of Section 52-A of the NDPS Act have not been complied with
- Whether compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act suffices to justify denial of bail
Legislation cited
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act — s. 20, 50, 52-A, 8
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- Section 52-A
- Section 50
- criminal procedure
- presumption of innocence
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6331 of 2026
Rajesh Mahra
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Arun Kumar Bajpai
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 68
(Sr. No.70 out of 185)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised. Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Arun Kumar Bajpai, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri
Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused
the material placed on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.06 of 2026, under Section 8/20 of
N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station Gajipur, District Fatehpur, during the pendency
of trial.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is
absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The
allegations are per se false. Even the recovery is sham. There is no
compliance of mandatory provisions of Section 52-A of the N.D.P.S. Act. T
he applicant has no criminal history and is in jail since 14.01.2026. He
undertakes to cooperate with the trial and not misuse the liberty of bail.
5. Learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application
on the ground that there is compliance of Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act,
although Section 52-A of the N.D.P.S. Act could not be complied with.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into
consideration that there is no compliance with the mandatory provisions of
Section 52-A of the N.D.P.S. Act, and without expressing any opinion on the
BAIL No. 6331 of 2026
2
merits of the case, prima-facie the Court is of the view that the applicant has
made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
7. Let the applicant- Rajesh Mahra, be released on bail in the
aforementioned case crime on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties to
the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to verification of sureties,
with the conditions that he shall not tamper with evidence or intimidate
witnesses and shall appear before the trial court as required.
8. Breach of any condition shall entail cancellation of bail. The observations
herein shall not affect the trial on merits.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
September 8, 2026
(Ravi Kant)
Digitally signed by :-
RAVI KANT
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…