Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:114114 Court No. - 87 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29792 of 2022 Applicant :- Pappu Upadhyay @ Santosh Pandey Opposite Party :- Union of India Counsel for Applicant :- Imran Ullah,Nikil Pathak,Shashi Dhar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- Ashish Pandey Hon'ble Avnish Saxena,J. 1. The present bail application has been moved by the applicant- accused Pappu Upadhyay @ Santosh Pandey for the offence punishable under Sections 8/20/27A/29 of N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 in N.C.B. No.01 of 2019, Police Station- NCB, Lucknow, District- Basti. 2. Mr. Nikhil Pandey, learned advocate, appears on behalf of applicant and submits that the accused-applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case, where the Narcotics Bureau has implicated the accused on the basis of statement made by co- accused, who have been arrested on the spot carrying 203.8 Kg. Ganja. Three of the accused have already been granted bail, who were arrested on the spot. The applicant is languishing in jail since 10.05.2019. As such, he prays that the accused/applicant be enlarged on bail. 3. Per contra, Sri Vipul Pandey, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri Ashish Pandey, appears for the N.C.B. submits that there is criminal history of two cases against the accused-applicant. The accused applicant is the main accused. It is further submitted that the delay of trial cannot be ground to release the accused. He has relied upon the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Vanthala Murali Vs. Union of India, passed on 19.10.2023 in petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.13520 of 2023. 4. Countering the argument of criminal history, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the criminal history of two cases have been shown against the accused, which are subsequent to the present case and have been explained in paragraph 19 of the bail application; one bail application has been rejected, another is pending disposal. 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. 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 prima facie reveals that the accused is languishing in jail since May, 2019. The name of the accused has been figured out from the statement of co-accused. The co- accused, who were arrested on the spot, were granted bail. The fact of the prosecution case is such that the teams of Narcotics Control Board had intercepted one Scorpio car and two trucks on the basis of tip off and arrested six persons and contraband. The name of accused came to light during inquiry. The case of Vanthala Murali (supra) is rejection of bail on the ground that the trial is commenced and further directed the trial to be concluded within six months. The applicant is languishing in jail since 10.05.2019. The trial is still pending. 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 :- 15.7.2025 Mini (Avnish Saxena,J.) Digitally signed by :- MINI KANAUJIYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad