Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:125531 Court No. - 87 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6438 of 2025 Applicant :- Manish Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Hon'ble Avnish Saxena,J. 1. Sri A.C. Srivastava, learned counsel appears for the applicant has filed supplementary affidavit today in the Court to explain the criminal history of the applicant, which is taken on record. 2. The present bail application has been moved by the applicant- accused Manish for the offence punishable under Sections 8/20/29/37/60 of N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 in Case Crime No.649 of 2024, Police Station- Gadhmukteshwar, District- Hapur. 3. Learned counsel appears on behalf of applicant and submits that the accused-applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case, the recovery of 40 kg. ganja from the joint possession of three accused persons including the applicant. The accused- applicant has been shown as the driver of the car. The arrest and recovery of the accused has not been made in the presence of independent witness. The mandatory provision of Section 50 N.D.P.S. Act has not been complied. The applicant is languishing in jail since 18.12.2024. As such, he prays that the accused/applicant be enlarged on bail. 4. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the bail and submits that charge sheet is submitted against the accused-applicant. 5. Taken into consideration the rival submissions made by the parties and perused the record. 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. 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. 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. The perusal of the records reveals that the applicant is the driver of the car. There are no independent witnesses. The compliance of mandatory provisions of N.D.P.S. Act are subject to adjudication in trial, which is pending. The charge sheet has been submitted against the accused-applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since December, 2024. Without touching the merit of the case, this bail application is allowed. 9. Let the accused applicant be enlarged on bail subject to furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned. Order Date :- 29.7.2025 Mini (Avnish Saxena,J.) Digitally signed by :- MINI KANAUJIYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad