Allahabad High Court

RAJUversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 18 March 2026
Bench: ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA

Holding

The court held that bail must be granted to the accused, subject to conditions, as the circumstances did not warrant denial of liberty.

Summary

The Allahabad High Court considered a bail application filed under section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for Raju, who was charged under sections 8 and 18 of the NDPS Act for allegedly possessing 490 grams of opium, a quantity below the commercial threshold. The applicant argued that no opium was actually recovered, there was no independent witness, and the prosecution failed to comply with sections 8, 9 and 10 of the NDPS Act, including the absence of a chemical analyst report. The State opposed bail, contending that the accused was involved in supplying contraband and might reoffend if released. Citing the Supreme Court’s pronouncements in State of Rajasthan v. Balchand (1977) and Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor (1978), the court emphasized the presumption in favour of bail unless there are compelling reasons to deny it. After weighing the nature of the accusation, the lack of strong evidence, the applicant’s clean record, and the safeguards against tampering, the court granted bail subject to a personal bond, two sureties, and strict conditions.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted to an accused under the NDPS Act for alleged possession of a non‑commercial quantity of opium.
Whether procedural deficiencies in the prosecution’s case (absence of chemical analysis report and independent witness) justify bail.
Whether the risk of the accused tampering with evidence, intimidating witnesses, or committing further offences warrants denial of bail.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 483
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 10, 18, 8, 9

Subjects

bail
NDPS Act
possession of opium
pre‑trial liberty
Article 21
commercial quantity
procedural lapse

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8340 of 2026

Raju
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Amit Kumar Tiwari, Niraj Kumar
Dwivedi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 68
HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Vijendra Kumar, learned
A.G.A. for the State and perused the record of the case.

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. 28 of 2026, under Section 8/18 of
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station-
Aliganj, District-Bareilly.

Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that 490 gram of Opium is
alleged to have been recovered from the possession of the applicant, which
is below commercial quantity. In fact no such recovery was effected from
the applicant. It is further submitted that since such recovery is not supported
by independent witness, possibility of his false implication in the crime
cannot be ruled out. It is next contended that in the present case the
prosecution has failed to follow strictly the provisions of Section 8, 9 and 10
of the N.D.P.S. Act. There is no report of chemical analyst. It is also argued
that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in
the present crime with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and victimize
him. The applicant, who is in jail since 09.02.2026 having no criminal
history to his credit, deserves to be released on bail. In case the applicant is
released on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant by
BAIL No. 8340 of 2026
2

contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial
stage who is involved in supplying contraband, therefore, the applicant does
not deserve any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail he will
again indulge in similar activity.

It is settled position of law that bail is the rule and committal to jail is an
exception in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Balchand @ Baliay (1977) 4
SCC 308, the Apex Court observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the
personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution and opined para 2 "The basic rule may perhaps be tersely put as
bail, not jail, except where there are circumstances suggestive of fleeing
from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in
the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like, by the
petitioner who seeks enlargement on bail from the court. We do. not intend
to be exhaustive but only illustrative." and considering the facts of the case
and keeping in mind, the ratio of the Apex Court's judgment in the case of
Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors vs Public Prosecutor, High Court Of
Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 429, larger mandate of Article 21 of the
constitution of India, the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in
support thereof, the severity of punishment which conviction will entail, the
character of the accused-applicant, circumstances which are peculiar to the
accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the
trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the
larger interest of the public/ State and other circumstances, but without
expressing any opinion on the merits, I am of the view that it is a fit case for
grant of bail.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits, let the accused-applicant
Raju involved in abovesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing
a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction
of the court concerned with the following conditions that :-

1. The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/
pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

2. The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any
adjournment.
BAIL No. 8340 of 2026
3

3. The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime
after being released on bail.

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and
sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

(Ashutosh Srivastava,J.)
March 19, 2026
Vibha Singh

Digitally signed by :-
VIBHA SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…