Allahabad High Court
Neeraj Gupta vs Union Of India on 21 August, 2025
Author: Santosh Rai
Bench: Santosh Rai
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:143878
Court No. - 87
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25883 of 2024
Applicant :- Neeraj Gupta
Opposite Party :- Union of India
Counsel for Applicant :- Rahul Gaur,Rajesh Sharma
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Ashish Pandey
Hon'ble Santosh Rai,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State-respondents and perused the record.
2. This bail application has been moved on behalf of accused-applicant, Neeraj Gupta seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.11 of 2024, under Section 8/20/29 N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station Gandhi Park, District Aligarh.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the accused-applicant is innocent. He has been falsely implicated in this very case crime number and is languishing in jail since 05.05.2024. From the perusal of the First Information Report, it appears that 3 kg of Charas has been recovered from the possession of the co-accused Neeraj. He further submits that mandatory provision of Section 50 of N.D.P.S Act has not been complied with. He further submits that applicant-Neeraj Gupta was not present on the spot and his name came into the light on the basis of the statement of co-accused-Neeraj, who was arrested on the spot by the authority of N.C.B. He further submits that it is an admitted fact by learned counsel for N.C.B that recovery has not been shown from the possession of the applicant-Neeraj Gupta. He further submits that applicant has criminal history of 6 cases, which have been explained in paragraph No.11 of the bail application. He further submits that the conclusion of trial will take sufficiently long and there is no likelihood of accused applicant fleeing from course of justice or tampering with evidence in case of release on bail. Hence, bail has been prayed for.
4. Per contra, Shri Ashish Pandey, learned Counsel for the N.C.B. has vehemently opposed the the prayer for bail and submits that accused-applicant has criminal history of 6 cases and he is the habitual offender. He has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in case of Baldev Singh @ Debu v. State of Punjab, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s), 1359 of 2021, decided on 30.07.2021 holding "that keeping in view all the attending circumstances especially the fact that the petitioner is alleged to be a habitual offender, not inclined to release him on regular bail.............."
5. Regarding bail application under N.D.P.S. Act it is pertinent to mention Section 37 of N.D.P.S. Act. Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act reads as under:-
"37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)-
(a) every offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable;
(b) no person accused of an offence punishable for offences under section 19 or section 24 or section 27A and also for offences involving commercial quantity shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless-
(i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and
(ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
(2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in clause (b) of sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law for the time being in force, on granting of bail."
6. Thus, the conditions which courts have to be cognizant of are that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is "not guilty of such offence" and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. What is meant by "not guilty" when all the evidence is not before the Court? It can only be a prima facie determination.
7. In State of Punjab Vs. Baldev Singh 1999 (6) SCC 172, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the compliance of Section 50 N.D.P.S. Act is mandatory;
".....That when an empowered officer or a duly authorised officer acting on prior information is about to search a person, it is imperative for him to inform the person concerned of his right under sub-section (1) of Section 50 of being taken to the nearest gazetted officer or the nearest Magistrate for making the search......"
(2) That failure to inform the person concerned about the existence of his right to be searched before a gazetted officer or a Magistrate would cause prejudice to an accused."
8. In the decisions in Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India 2024 (7) SCC 576, Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) 2024(8) SCC 254 and Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana AIR 2025 SC 1388, it has been held that the requirement of informing a person of grounds for arrest is a mandatory requirement of Article 22(1) and also that the information of the grounds for arrest must be provided to the arrested person in such a manner that sufficient knowledge of the basic facts confuting the grounds imparted and communicate to the arrested person effectively in the language which he understands.
9. After perusing the record in the light of submission advanced by learned counsel for applicant and learned AGA and considering all above facts and circumstances, the nature of accusations, severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and nature of supporting evidence, twin principles as laid down in Section 37 of N.D.P.S. Act and fact of no recovery from the possession of accused/applicant, period of detention in jail, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness and prima facie case, but without commenting on merit of case, a case for bail is made out.
10. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.
11. Let the accused-applicant, Neeraj Gupta involved in above mentioned case crime number be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each, in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:
i. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence.
ii. The applicant will not indulge in any criminal activity.
iii. The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and co-operate in the trial.
iv. The applicant will appear regularly on each and every date fixed by the trial court, unless his personal appearance is exempted through counsel by the court concerned.
12. In the event of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the court below will be at liberty to proceed to cancel his bail.
Order Date :- 21.8.2025
A.N. Mishra
