Allahabad High Court

VIJAY BANSALversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 18 March 2026
Bench: KRISHAN PAHAL

Holding

Bail was denied because the applicant was found to be in conscious possession of a substantial quantity of ganja.

Summary

The applicant, Vijay Bansal, sought bail in a case under the NDPS Act where 526.60 kg of ganja was recovered from a truck he allegedly was traveling in. He argued that he was merely a cleaner, not the driver or transporter, and that the statements of the vehicle owner, driver, and transporter did not name him as a participant. He also contended that the police failed to comply with Rule 18 of the Uttar Pradesh Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Rules, 2024, which mandates audio‑video recording of searches. The State opposed bail, emphasizing that the applicant was in conscious possession of a large quantity of contraband. The Court held that the bail application was devoid of merit because the applicant was in possession of the narcotics and therefore denied bail. It directed the trial court to expedite the trial, noting that the observations were limited to the bail application and would not affect the trial’s merits.

Issues considered

Whether the applicant is entitled to bail under the NDPS Act given the alleged possession of a large quantity of narcotics
Whether non‑compliance with Rule 18 of the Uttar Pradesh Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Rules, 2024, affects the bail application
Whether the applicant’s role as a cleaner absolves him from liability for the contraband

Legislation cited

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act — s. 20, 25, 29, 60, 8
Uttar Pradesh Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Rules, 2024 — s. Rule 18

Subjects

bail
NDPS Act
contraband possession
Rule 18
e‑Sakshya
Uttar Pradesh criminal procedure
court discretion

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8959 of 2026

Vijay Bansal
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Harish Kumar, Sr. Advocate, Umesh
Chandra Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 66
(Sr. No.2 out of 116)

HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

1. List has been revised.

2. Heard Sri Amit Daga, learned Senior Counsel for applicant, Sri Sanjeev
Singh, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Sunil Kumar,
learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

3. This is the second bail application on behalf of the applicant. The first one
was rejected by this Court vide order dated 12.09.2025 passed in Criminal
Misc. Bail Application No.12762 of 2025.

4. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime
No.270 of 2024, under Sections 8/20, 25, 29, 60 of N.D.P.S. Act, Police
Station Babina, District Jhansi with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

5. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant has stated that in the earlier
order, the relevant part could not be brought before this Court. As per the
statement of the owner of the vehicle, Ashish Kumar, the driver of the
vehicle was Shadab Mansoori and the conductor was Sandeep, and not the
applicant. The fact mentioned in the order that the applicant was the cleaner
of the vehicle stands falsified. Even the person from whom the goods were
loaded, namely Raman Patel, was examined. He has also not nominated the
applicant; rather, he has stated that the driver was Shadab Mansoori.

6. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant has further stated that even the
BAIL No. 8959 of 2026
2

transporter, Manish Agrawal, has not nominated the applicant. Both of them
have simply named the driver, Shadab Mansoori, in their statements. The
applicant had boarded the said truck from Sagar, as he wanted to go to
Jhansi, and Sagar falls en-route to Jhansi. The applicant is in jail since
18.07.2024 and is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, he is released on
bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

7. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant has also stated that there is no
compliance of Rule 18 of the Uttar Pradesh Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Rules, 2024, which reads as under:-

"Rule 18 of The Uttar Pradesh Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Rules, 2024.
Recording of search and seizure by audio-video electronic means.-
(1) The process of searching any person or place and taking possession of
any property, article or material, including preparation of a list of all
articles seized during the search and seizure and signature of witnesses
on such list, shall mandatorily be done through E-Sakshya App specified
by the Government of India or any other audio-video electronic means
specified by the State Government, for which mobile phone or other
audio-video electronic device of the police station or police officer on
duty shall be used. The video-recording so made shall form part of the
case diary. As far as possible, the latitude-longitude and time of
recording shall also be recorded along with the video.
(2) The police officer shall, without delay, but not later than 48 hours,
send a copy of the list of articles seized along with signatures of witnesses
and video-recording of the search and seizure process to the Magistrate.
(3) An Inter-operable Criminal Justice System (ICJS) Nodal Officer for
each district of the State shall be nominated by the Home Department,
Government of Uttar Pradesh and authorized users for accessing the 'e-
Sakshya Mobile Application' on the ICJS platform shall be created by
Uttar Pradesh Technical Services, Headquarters, Police Station wise.
(4) The authorized users of the Police Station as above shall be able to
download the e-Sakshya Mobile Application from the mSeva Mobile App
Store and install the e-Sakshya Mobile App on the mobile phone allotted
to them.
(5) The standard operating procedure for going live on the e-Sakshya
Portal and uploading and downloading of evidence collected on it shall
BAIL No. 8959 of 2026
3

be determined by the Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh in
coordination with NCRB."

8. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application.

9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration
that the applicant was in conscious possession of a heavy quantity of
contraband, i.e., 526.60 kg. of Ganja, which was recovered from the said
truck, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. The bail
application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected.

10. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial
court be decided expeditiously as early as possible in view of the principle as
has been laid down in the recent judgments of the Supreme Court in the
cases of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab; 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain
and Another vs. Union of India; (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal
impediment.

11. 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.

(Krishan Pahal,J.)
March 19, 2026
(Ravi Kant)

Digitally signed by :-
RAVI KANT
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…