Allahabad High Court
MANISHversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- SAMEER JAIN
Holding
Bail was denied as the applicant failed to provide a cogent reason for the alleged possession and, given the commercial quantity and prior offences, Section 37 of the NDPS Act precludes release.
Summary
The applicant, Manish, sought bail in a case under Sections 8 and 20 of the NDPS Act where 1.06 kg of charas was allegedly recovered from his possession. He contended that the recovery was false, that procedural safeguards under Sections 50 and 52 were not followed, and that his prior criminal history, including eight other cases, should not prejudice his bail. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the commercial quantity of the drug and the applicant's repeat offences, invoking Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The court found the applicant unable to provide a satisfactory explanation for the alleged possession and noted his prior bail history and alleged repeat offence. Relying on Section 37, the court concluded that bail could not be granted and dismissed the application.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted under the NDPS Act when commercial quantity of charas is alleged to have been recovered.
- Whether the applicant's prior criminal history and alleged repeat offence justify denial of bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
- Whether procedural requirements under Sections 50 and 52 of the NDPS Act were complied with in the recovery.
Legislation cited
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act — s. 20, 37, 50, 52, 8
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- commercial quantity
- charas
- Section 37
- prior criminal history
- procedural compliance
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7433 of 2026
Manish
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Prem Chandra Dwivedi, Vivek Kumar
Dwivedi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 66
HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.
1. Heard Sri Prem Chandra Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant and
Sri Vijay Kumar, learned AGA-I for the State.
2. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant
on bail in Case Crime No.824 of 2025, under Section 8/20 NDPS Act, Police
Station Ramgarh, District Firozabad, during pendency of the trial.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, however as per allegation from
the possession of the applicant, 1 kg. and 60 gram charas was recovered but
entire allegations are totally false.
4. He next submits, actually earlier also, police has falsely implicated the
applicant in eight other cases including a case under the Provisions of NDPS
Act and, only due to his previous criminal history, this time also, police
implicated him in the present matter by showing false recovery of
contraband.
5. He further submits, even from the record, it reflects at the time of
recovery, mandatory provisions of Sections 50 and 52 of NDPS Act have not
been complied with.
6. He next submits, the entire criminal history of the applicant has been duly
explained and in all the previous cases, he is on bail.
7. He further submits, in the present matter, applicant is in jail since
01.01.2026 i.e. for the last more than three and half months.
BAIL No. 7433 of 2026
2
8. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submits, from
the possession of the applicant more than 1 kg charas was recovered and,
therefore, as per allegations, from the possession of the applicant
commercial quantity of charas has been recovered and applicant could not
bring any good reason for his false implication.
9. He next submits, even apart from the present case, applicant is having
criminal history of eight other cases including the previous case of NDPS
Act and it reflects while he was on bail then again he committed the present
offence and, therefore, considering the provisions of Section 37 of N.D.P.S.
Act, applicant should not be released on bail.
10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the
case.
11. As per allegation, from possession of the applicant commercial quantity
of charas was recovered and, however, as per applicant due to previous
enmity, police implicated him in the present matter but this Court finds
merits in the argument advanced by learned A.G.A. that applicant could not
give any cogent reasons for his false implication.
12. Further, even apart from the present case, applicant is having criminal
history of eight other cases including one case of NDPS Act and it appears
while he was on bail in that case then he committed the present offence.
13. Therefore, considering the provisions of Section 37 of N.D.P.S. Act, I
am not inclined to release the applicant on bail.
14. Accordingly, instant bail application stands dismissed.
15. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts
brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the
said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.
April 20, 2026
Mini
(Sameer Jain,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
MINI KANAUJIYA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…