Aneesh vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. ... on 15 April, 2026





HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC-LKO:25818
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
LUCKNOW 
 
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2645 of 2026   
 
   Aneesh    
 
  .....Applicant(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.    
 
  .....Opposite Party(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Applicant(s)   
 
:   
 
Mulayam Singh Yadav   
 
  
 
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)   
 
:   
 
G.A.   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 28
 
   
 
 HON'BLE RAJEEV BHARTI, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State on this second bail application, the first having been dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 23.2.2026 passed in Bail No.595 of 2024, and perused the record.

2. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 405 of 2023, under Sections 8/15/29/60 of NDPS Act, Police Station Haidargarh, District Barabanki.

3. As per prosecution version, 12 Quintal 22 kg. and 900 grams of contraband substance i.e. 'Doda' is said to be recovered.

4. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and he has falsely been planted by the police. The applicant has simply taken a lift in the said vehicle. Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 6.12.2024 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.6847 of 2024 has granted bail to the co accused Guddu on the ground that no compliance of Section 52-A of the Act 1985 and Rules 9 and 10 of the Rules, 2022 has been made by the respondents. There is no independent public eye witness of the recovery. He also submits that so far as the samples are concerned, there is material doubt that 8.50 kg. sample was taken, whereas the Forensic Science Laboratory report dated 4th of December, 2023 is evident that the sample 50.4 gram was received with the office of the FSL and further the samples were also sent to the FSL after inordinate delay, as samples were taken on 20th of October, 2023 and same were received in the office of FSL on 04.11.2023 and, thus, the whole proceeding of recovery as well as the sampling vitiates in the eyes of law, as the same is in contravention of the provisions of Section 52-A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred as 'Act 1985') read with Rules 9 and 10 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules 2022) and thus, the trial will not lead to the punishment. He added that the applicant has no criminal history, as such, there is no possibility that the applicant would tamper the evidence or would threaten the witnesses. He also submits that the applicant is a law abiding citizen and he is languishing in jail since 20.10.2023 and he undertakes that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

Another co-accused Sameer Shah has been granted bail vide order, Annexure-6.

5. Per contra, learned AGA appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that a huge quantity i.e. 12 quintal 22 kg.900 gm. contraband substance i.e. 'Doda' is recovered from the vehicle, which is driven by the applicant and as such, he is not entitled for grant of bail and before consideration of the

6. In view of the embargo contained under Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, this Court is required to record its satisfaction with regard to the twin conditions stipulated therein.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Muslim v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine SC 352, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under:- "13. When provisions of law curtail the right of an accused to secure bail, and correspondingly fetter judicial discretion (like Section 37 of the NDPS Act, in the present case), this court has upheld them for conflating two competing values, i.e., the right of the accused to enjoy freedom, based on the presumption of innocence, and societal interest - as observed in Vaman Narain Ghiya v. State of Rajasthan ("the concept of bail emerges from the conflict between the police power to restrict liberty of a man who is alleged to have committed a crime, and presumption of innocence in favour of the alleged criminal?."). They are, at the same time, upheld on the condition that the trial is concluded expeditiously. The Constitution Bench in Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab made observations to this effect. In Shaheen Welfare Association v. Union of India again, this court expressed the same sentiment, namely that when stringent provisions are enacted, curtailing the provisions of bail, and restricting judicial discretion, it is on the basis that investigation and trials would be concluded swiftly................ 21. .....................Grant of bail on ground of undue delay in trial, cannot be said to be fettered by Section 37 of the Act, given the imperative of Section 436A which is applicable to offences under the NDPS Act too (ref. Satender Kumar Antil supra). Having regard to these factors the court is of the opinion that in the facts of this case, the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail. 22. Before parting, it would be important to reflect that laws which impose stringent conditions for grant of bail, may be necessary in public interest; yet, if trials are not concluded in time, the injustice wrecked on the individual is immeasurable. Jails are overcrowded and their living conditions, more often than not, appalling. According to the Union Home Ministry's response to Parliament, the National Crime Records Bureau had recorded that as on 31st December 2021, over 5,54,034 prisoners were lodged in jails against total capacity of 4,25,069 lakhs in the country20. Of these 122,852 were convicts; the rest 4,27,165 were undertrials. 23. The danger of unjust imprisonment, is that inmates are at risk of "prisonisation" a term described by the Kerala High Court in A Convict Prisoner v. State21 as"a radical transformation" whereby the prisoner: "loses his identity. He is known by a number. He loses personal possessions. He has no personal relationships. Psychological problems result from loss of freedom, status, possessions, dignity any autonomy of personal life. The inmate culture of prison turns out to be dreadful. The prisoner becomes hostile by ordinary standards. Selfperception changes." 24. There is a further danger of the prisoner turning to crime, "as crime not only turns admirable, but the more professional the crime, more honour is paid to the criminal" 22 (also see Donald Clemmer's 'The Prison Community' published in 194023). Incarceration has further deleterious effects - where the accused belongs to the weakest economic strata : immediate loss of livelihood, and in several cases, scattering of families as well as loss of family bonds and alienation from society. The courts therefore, have to be sensitive to these aspects (because in the event of an acquittal, the loss to the accused is irreparable), and ensure that trials - especially in cases, where special laws enact stringent provisions, are taken up and concluded speedily."

8. Learned counsel for the applicant further relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Man Mandal v. State of W.B., reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1868 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court granted bail to the petitioners on the ground that they had undergone almost 2 years and the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future. Hence, to grant bail in NDPS Act, the accused person has to cross the hurdle of twin conditions mentioned in section 37 of NDPS Act. Time and again, the Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of judgments has laid down that the twin conditions can be relaxed provided the accused person has undergone substantial period of incarceration and the trial is unlikely to end in near future. In addition, the accused person has a right to speedy trial which flows from Article 21 of Constitution of India.

9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, upon consideration of the material available on record, submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is satisfied that (i) there are reasonable grounds for believing that the applicant is not guilty of the alleged offence; and (ii) the applicant is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

10. Considering the manner, in which the sample was drawn, is not in terms of mandate of Section 52-A of the N.D.P.S. Act, without entering into the merits of the case, and delay in trial and long incarceration as the applicant who has been languishing in jail since 20.10.2023 having no criminal history, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

11. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed on parity ground.

12. Let the applicant Aneesh involved in the aforementioned 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:-

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

(2) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. He shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code;

(3) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.; and

(4) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

13. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case.

(Rajeev Bharti,J.)

April 15, 2026

kkb/