HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 9888 of 2026 Court No. - 71 HON'BLE RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA, J. 1. Heard the Learned counsel for the applicant and Learned AGA for the State. 2. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No. 172 of 2026, under Section 8/21/29 of N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station- Nakud, District Saharanpur, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail as the applicant apprehends his arrest in the abovementioned case. 3. The Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The name of the applicant surfaced in the confessional statement of co- accused Mobeen, from whom 261 grams of smack was recovered. The Learned counsel for the applicant has further contended that the wife of the applicant was molested by co- accused Mobeen, who was arrested by the police, and it is only on account of the said enmity that he has taken the name of the applicant. The Learned counsel for the applicant has further contended that even the recovery made from the co-accused is not in accordance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act. The co-accused Mobeen has been granted regular bail by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail No. 16893 of 2026. The Learned counsel for the applicant has lastly contended that apart from the present case, the applicant has criminal history of two other cases, but is not a previous convict. 4. The Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail and has contended that apart from the present case, the applicant has Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Chandra Prakash, Muskan Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Shokeen .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) criminal history of two other cases under the NDPS Act. Being a repeat offender, he may not be considered for grant of anticipatory bail. He further contended that the investigation is still pending. The name of the applicant has surfaced in the statement of the co- accused Mobeen and the applicant may be required for custodial interrogation and further recoveries. 5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 6. The offence in question involves 261 grams of smack, which is more than the commercial quantity prescribed for heroin, which is 250 grams. The twin requirements of Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act are required to be fulfilled before granting anticipatory bail or regular bail to any accused charged under the N.D.P.S. Act. For ready reference, Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act is reproduced hereinbelow:- "37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.— (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)— (a) every offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable; (b) no person accused of an offence punishable for offences under section 19 or section 24 or section 27A and also for offences involving commercial quantity shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless-- (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and (ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. (2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in clause (b) of sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law for the time being in force, on granting of bail." 7. This Court, in the case of Ikram alias Kala vs. State of U.P. passed in NABAIL No. 5177; Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC:166718, while considering the grant of anticipatory bail in offences under the N.D.P.S. Act involving commercial quantity, has held that before grant of anticipatory bail, the twin NABAIL No. 9888 of 2026 2 requirements under Section 37 of the NDPS Act are required to be fulfilled. The relevant paragraphs of the above-mentioned judgment are reproduced hereinunder:- "32. The accusation in the present case is with regard to the commercial quantity. Once the bail is opposed to a person accused of the enumerated offences, in case, the Court proposes to grant bail to such a person, two conditions are to be mandatorily satisfied in addition to the normal requirements under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or any other enactment, (i) the Court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the person is not guilty of such offence. 33. In State of M.P. Vs. Kajad, (2001) 7 SCC 673, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that negation of bail is the rule and its grant an exception under (ii) of clause (b) of Section 37(1) of the Act, 1985. 34. In Criminal Appeal No.(s) 154-157 of 2020, State of Kerala Vs. Rajesh and others, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held on 24.01.2020 that the expression "reasonable grounds" means something more than prima-facie grounds, and (ii) that person is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. It is the mandate of the legislature which is required to be followed. The non-obstante clause with which this Section starts should be given its due meaning and clearly it is intended to restrict the powers to grant bail. To check the menace of dangers drugs and psychotropic substances flooding the market, the Parliament has provided that the person accused of the offences under the Act should not be released on bail during the trial unless the mandatory conditions provided under Section 37 of the Act, 1985 are satisfied. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held that liberal approach in the matter of bail under the NDPS Act, is uncalled for. Therefore, it is quite clear that an order of bail/anticipatory bail cannot be granted in an arbitrary or fanciful manner. 35. The learned Senior Counsel has failed to produce any authority of the Apex Court, wherein the anticipatory bail was granted to an accused, involved in commercial quantity of contraband material. On the other hand, there are various NABAIL No. 9888 of 2026 3 authorities of the Supreme Court, wherein it was held that bail or anticipatory bail ought not to be granted to the accused who was found to be involved in the offences of commercial quantity of the contraband material. 36. As per the Article 141 of the Constitution of India, the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India. Article 141 leaves no room for ambiguity or dual interpretation. The expression "all courts" include every High Court, District Courts, Trial Courts and other Tribunals, across the territory of India. Where a High Court decision conflicts with a judgment of the Supreme Court, the law declared by the Supreme Court unconditionally prevails. Therefore, this Court follows the decision of the Supreme Court wherein it has been held that the Court ought not to grant bail unless twin conditions of Section 37 of N.D.P.S. Act are satisfied. This Court has no reason to believe that the applicant is not guilty of such offence and further that he will not commit any offence under the Act, if released on bail." 8. In the present case, the applicant has criminal history of other cases under the N.D.P.S. Act. The contraband recovered in the present case is more than the commercial quantity prescribed. The co-accused Saddam had filed anticipatory bail before this Court and he was permitted to withdraw his application and apply for regular bail. The reason given by the applicant for his false implication, in the prima facie opinion of the Court, cannot be considered at this stage and may form part of the defence of the applicant at the appropriate stage. 9. At present, Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act requires this Court to record a satisfaction that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the applicant has not committed the offence and if he is enlarged on bail, he is not likely to commit any such offence under the NDPS act in the near future. This Court is unable to record such satisfaction at this stage. 10. Accordingly, the application is hereby dismissed. September 29, 2026/Junaid NABAIL No. 9888 of 2026 4 (Rajiv Lochan Shukla,J.) Digitally signed by :- JUNAID AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad