Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:130586 Court No. - 87 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 37299 of 2024 Applicant :- Bachcha Dom Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shivajee Srivastava,Shrikant Singh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Avnish Saxena,J. 1. Sri Shivajee Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant files supplementary affidavit, explaining criminal history of 34 cases of the applicant, the same is taken on record. 2. Learned A.G.A. files counter affidavit, the same is also taken on record. 3. Heard Sri Shivajee Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 4. The present bail application, seeking bail, has been moved by the applicant- accused-Bachcha Dom in Case No.84 of 2024, under Sections 8/22 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, Police Station-G.R.P., District Varanasi. 5. Learned counsel for the accused-applicant submits that the accused-applicant has been apprehended at railway station with 230 gram of Alprazolam. Since arrest and recovery has been made in absence of independent witness, false implication of the applicant cannot be ruled out. Charge-sheet has been filed. The criminal history of 34 cases shown against the applicant has been explained in supplementary affidavit. The applicant is languishing in jail since 13.04.2024. In case the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 6. Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant by contending that applicant has been apprehended at railway station with 230 gram of Alprazolam. The applicant does not deserve any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail, he will again indulge in similar activity. 7. This Court has taken into consideration the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 8. It is settled position of law that bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception as propounded 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, (1978) 1 SCC 240 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. 9. In the case of Mohd. Muslim alias Hussain Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2023) 18 SCC 166] the Apex Court observed and held that the rigour under Section 37 of N.D.P.S. Act would not come in the way, when the Court deals with the liberty of a person, as more the rigour, quicker ought to be the adjudication. 10. The perusal of records, prima facie, reveals that charge-sheet has been submitted. The arrest and recovery has been made in absence of independent witness, The criminal history of 34 cases shown against the applicant has been explained in supplementary affidavit, wherein the applicant is on bail. The applicant is languishing in jail since 13.04.2024. The compliance of mandatory provisions of NDPS Act is subject to trial. 11. Hence, without touching the merit of the case, the bail application is allowed. 12. Let the accused-applicant involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned. Order Date :- 4.8.2025 MN/- (Avnish Saxena,J.) Digitally signed by :- MAHENDRA NATH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad