Monu v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC12 Jun 2025BAIL/14680/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court (Court No. 87), CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 14680 of 2025, Monu v. State of U.P., decided 11.7.2025 by Avnish Saxena, J.; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:111554. Bail allowed under Sections 21/22 N.D.P.S. Act, 1985; 750 gram diazepam recovery; Section 50 NDPS compliance and Section 37 rigour; no independent witness of arrest/recovery; charge sheet filed; five prior cases explained; custody since 13.11.2024; relied on Balchand (1977) 4 SCC 308, Gudikanti Narasimhulu ((1928) 1 SCC 24) and Mohd. Muslim ((2023) 18 SCC 166); counsel: Ashish Goyal for applicant, G.A. for State.

What did the court decide?

Enlargement of the accused-applicant on bail subject to furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned. ¶¶13

Monu vs State of U.P. — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Enlargement of the accused-applicant on bail subject to furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

¶¶13

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant-accused Monu, prosecuted for offences punishable under Sections 21/22 of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 (alleged recovery of 750 gram diazepam, Case Crime No. 289 of 2024, P.S. Refinery, Mathura), should be enlarged on bail, having regard to the absence of an independent witness to the arrest and recovery, the alleged non-compliance of Section 50 N.D.P.S. Act, the rigour of Section 37, the submitted charge sheet, and his criminal history of five cases.

¶¶7

Court's answer

Considering that there was no independent witness of the arrest and recovery, that the charge sheet had been submitted, that the criminal history of five cases stood explained (allegedly lodged on the same day as the arrest), that compliance of the mandatory provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act remains subject to adjudication at the pending trial, and that the applicant was in jail since 13.11.2024, the court found it a fit case for grant of bail without touching the merits of the case.

¶¶13

Ratio / Principle

The accused-applicant is to be enlarged on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

¶¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail — N.D.P.S. Act, 1985, Sections 21/22 — alleged recovery of 750 gram diazepam (Case Crime No. 289 of 2024, P.S. Refinery, Mathura) — arrest and recovery effected without any independent witness — alleged non-compliance of Section 50 N.D.P.S. Act left for adjudication at trial — charge sheet submitted — criminal history of five cases explained as lodged on the same day as the arrest — applicant in custody since 13.11.2024 — bail is the rule, jail the exception (State of Rajasthan v. Balchand @ Baliay, (1977) 4 SCC 308; Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor, (1928) 1 SCC 24) — rigour of Section 37 N.D.P.S. Act no bar where liberty is at stake and adjudication is delayed (Mohd. Muslim alias Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2023) 18 SCC 166) — bail granted without expressing opinion on merits, on personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount (Avnish Saxena, J.; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:111554, decided 11.7.2025).

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:111554

¶2

Court No. - 87

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14680 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Monu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashish Goyal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Avnish Saxena,J.

¶6

The present bail application has been moved by the applicantaccused Monu for the offence punishable under Sections 21/22 of N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 in Case Crime No. 289 of 2024, Police StationRefinery, District- Mathura.

¶7

Mr. Ashish Goyal, learned advocate, appears on behalf of applicant and submits that the accused-applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case, wherein the recovery of 750 gram diazepam has been shown from the possession of the accusedapplicant. The arrest and recovery of the accused has not been made in the presence of independent witness. The mandatory provision of Section 50 N.D.P.S. Act has not been complied. The criminal history of five cases has been explained. The applicant is languishing in jail since 13.11.2024. As such, he prays that the accused/applicant be enlarged on bail.

¶8

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the bail and submits that charge sheet is submitted against the accused-applicant.

¶9

Taken into consideration the rival submissions made by the parties and perused the record.

¶10

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

¶11

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, (1928) 1 SCC 24 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.

¶12

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.

¶13

The perusal of the records reveals that the accused has been apprehended by the police party and contraband has been recovered. There is no independent witness of arrest recovery. The charge sheet has been submitted against the accused-applicant. The criminal history of five cases shown against the accused has been explained, which were allegedly lodged on the same day of the arrest. 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 13.11.2024 Without touching the merit of the case, this bail application is allowed .

¶14

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.

¶15

Order Date :- 11.7.2025 Mini

¶16

(Avnish Saxena,J.)

¶17

Digitally signed by :- MINI KANAUJIYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Monu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Monu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Archana Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Dilnawaz vs State of U.P.

Brijesh Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Rijwan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Vishnu Nishad vs State of U.P.

Prakhar Sharma @ Sagar vs State of U.P.