Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:119740 Court No. - 87 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 35557 of 2024 Applicant :- Deepak Alias Kallu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Abhinav Gaur Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Avnish Saxena,J. 1. Sri Abhinav Gaur, Advocated nominated by the High Court Legal Services Committee has filed the rejoinder affidavit. The same is taken on record. 2. The present bail application has been moved by the applicant- accused Deepak Alias Kallu for the offence punishable under Sections 21/22 of N.D.P.S. Act in Case Crime No. 10 of 2019, Police Station- Soron, District-Kasganj. 3. Sri Abhinav Gaur, learned advocate appeared for the applicant and submitted that the accused applicant is in jail since 2nd January, 2019 in the present case by the police when 750 gms Digapam has been recovered from the possession of the accused applicant, in absence of independent witness. The charge sheet has been submitted. The mandatory compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act has not been carried out. So far as the criminal history of the accused-applicant is concerned, the accused in convicted in the case, on the basis of plead guilty, whereas in one of the narcotics case, the accused is acquitted on merit. The accused is not a habitual offender but has been falsely implicated by the police. As such, the accused applicant is liable to be released on bail. 4. Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant by contending that 750 gms Digapam has been recovered, which attract Section 37 of N.D.P.S. Act. The accused applicant is habitual offender who has already been convicted in two of the matters of narcotic. The applicant does not deserve any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail, he will again indulge in similar activity. 5. This court has taken into consideration the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 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. It prima facie reveals from the record that that the FIR has been registered on 2nd January, 2019 by the police on the basis of tip off wherein 750 gms digapam has been recovered from the possession of the accused, in absence of independent witness. The mandatory provisions of Section of N.D.P.S. Act is the subject matter of trial. The accused is convicted in two of the cases of the NDPS Act on the basis of confession, whereas in one of the case of NDPS Act he has been acquitted. The accused is languishing in jail since January, 2019. Trial is pending 9. Hence, without touching the merit of the case, the bail application is allowed. 10. The accused/applicant- Deepak Alias Kallu 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