Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:109039 Court No. - 87 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5542 of 2025 Applicant :- Jitendra Varma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Jitendra Kumar Srivastava,Sanjay Kumar Tripathi,Yogesh Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Avnish Saxena,J. 1 Sri Yogesh Kumar Tiwari, Advocate appears for the applicant and submits that the accused/applicant has been falsely implicated in Case Crime No.08 of 2025, under Sections 8/20 of N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station Sarpataha, District Jaunpur. 2. Learned counsel for the accused-applicant contends that a quantum of 21 kg 300 grams of Ganja has been allegedly recovered from the accused-applicant. There is no independent witness of arrest and recovery. The mandatory provision of Section 50 N.D.P.S. Act has not been complied.The applicant has no criminal history. The applicant is languishing in jail since 21.01.2025. As such, he prays that the accused/applicant be enlarged on bail. 3. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that a huge quantity of contraband has been confiscated at the behest of the accused. The charge-sheet has already been submitted. 4. This Court has taken into consideration the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 5. 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. 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. 6. 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. 7. The record prima facie reveals that the arrest and recovery has been made in absence of independent witness. The mandatory compliance of N.D.P.S. Act is the matter of adjudication. The applicant has no criminal history. Charge-sheet has already been submitted. 8. Hence, without touching the merit of the case, the bail application is allowed. 9. The accused/applicant-Jitendra Varma be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned. Order Date :- 9.7.2025 MN/- (Avnish Saxena,J.) Digitally signed by :- MAHENDRA NATH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad