Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:110311 Court No. - 87 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2969 of 2025 Applicant :- Devendra Kumar And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Avnish Saxena,J. 1. Heard Sri Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. Sri Srivastava submits that the accused/applicants have been implicated in Case No.87 of 2024, under Sections 8/20/60 N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station Chakarghatta, District Chanduali. 3. Sri Srivastava further contends that 37.890 kg of Ganja has been allegedly recovered from the accused-applicants, in absence of independent witness. Hence, 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 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act. It is also argued that the applicants are absolutely innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicants, who are in jail since 26.12.2024, having no criminal history to their credit, deserve to be released on bail on the ground of long incarceration. In case the applicants are released on bail, they will not misuse the liberty of bail. 4. Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicants by contending that huge quantity of contraband has been recovered, which attract Section 37 of N.D.P.S. Act. The applicants do not deserve any indulgence. In case the applicants are released on bail, they will again indulge in similar activity. 5. This Court has taken into consideration the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 6. 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, (1928) 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. 7. 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. 8. Without expressing any opinion on the merits, considering that the applicants-accused are in jail since December, 2024 and there is nothing on record to show early conclusion of trial, moreover, the arrest and recovery is made in absence of independent witness, the compliance of mandatory provisions of NDPS Act is subject to trial, let the applicants-Devendra Kumar and Nirala Maurya involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on their furnishing personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned. 9. The bail application of the applicants is, accordingly, allowed. Order Date :- 10.7.2025 MN/- (Avnish Saxena,J.) Digitally signed by :- MAHENDRA NATH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad