Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:119599 Court No. - 87 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11989 of 2025 Applicant :- Chand Qureshi @ Chand Babu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashutosh Gupta,Vandana Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Avnish Saxena,J. 1. The present bail application has been moved by the applicant- accused Chand Qureshi @ Chand Babu for the offence punishable under Sections 21/22 of NDPS Act in Case Crime No.266 of 2024, Police Station Kotwali, District Mathura. 2. Sri Ashutosh Gupta, learned advocate appeared for the applicant and submitted that the accused-applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case, wherein, 200 gms of Alprazolm has been recovered from the possession of the accused-applicant while he was on the way. Recovery has been made in the absence of independent witness. The two cases of criminal history is shown against the accused applicant by the police, in which he has already been granted bail. The mandatory compliance of provision of Section 50 of the NDPS has not been made. Charge sheet has already been submitted. The accused-applicant is languishing in jail since April, 2024. As such, the accused applicant is liable to be released on bail. 3. Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant by contending that 200 gms of Alprazolm has been recovered, which attract Section 37 of N.D.P.S. Act. Charge sheet has been submitted against the accused applicant. There is a criminal history of two cases. The applicant does not deserve any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail, he will again indulge in similar activity. 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. 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. 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. It prima facie reveals from the record that the arrest and recovery has been made in absence of independent witness. The mandatory provisions of Section of N.D.P.S. Act is the subject matter of trial. The charge sheet has been submitted. The accused is in jail since April, 2024. 8. Hence, without touching the merit of the case, the bail application is allowed. 9. The accused/applicant- Chand Qureshi @ Chand Babu 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 :- 22.7.2025 I.A.Siddiqui (Avnish Saxena, J.) Digitally signed by :- IMRAN AHMAD SIDDIQUI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad