Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:131696 Court No. - 87 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 18514 of 2025 Applicant :- Riyaz Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Avnish Saxena,J. 1. Learned A.G.A. has filed counter affidavit today in the Court, which is taken on record. 2. The present bail application has been moved by the applicant- accused Riyaz for the offence punishable under Sections 8/21 of N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 in Case Crime No.39 of 2025, Police Station- Chamanganj, District- Kanpur Nagar. 3. Sri Ram Prakash Srivastava and Sri Manoj Srivastava, learned counsel appears on behalf of applicant and submits that the accused-applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case, wherein police party on the basis of tip off entered a house and recovered along with the country made pistol, 2.460 kg. charas from a bag kept in the room. The charge sheet has been submitted against the 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 is languishing in jail since 25.04.2024. 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. There is criminal history of one case of Arms Act. 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 record prima facie reveals that the arrest and recovery of three persons including the applicant have been made from the house. There is nothing on record to show that whose house it is. The recovery has been made in absence of independent witness. There is no criminal history of the accused. The history of one case of Arms Act, accused is on bail. The case of Arms Act is registered on the same day when the arrest and recovery has been made. The compliance of mandatory provisions of N.D.P.S. Act are subject to adjudication in trial, which is pending. The applicant is languishing in jail since April, 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 in view of observation made by the Supreme Court in its dictums of Girish Gandhi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2024) 10 SCC 674] and Policy Strategy for grant of bail in re [(2024)10SCC 685]. 10. The accused-applicant shall cooperate in judicial process for fair and speedy disposal. Order Date :- 5.8.2025/Mini (Avnish Saxena,J.) Digitally signed by :- MINI KANAUJIYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad