Veerpal vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:129251

Court No. - 87 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17423 of 2025

Applicant :- Veerpal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Alpika Srivastava,Neeraj Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Avnish Saxena,J.

¶5

Learned A.G.A. has filed counter affidavit today in the Court, which is taken on record.

¶6

The present bail application has been moved by the applicantaccused Veerpal for the offence punishable under Sections 8/20/60 of N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 in Case Crime No.165 of 2025, Police Station- Garmukteshwar, District- Hapur.

¶7

Sri Neeraj Srivastava, learned counsel appears on behalf of applicant and submits that the accused-applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case, the recovery of 67 kg. and 300 gram ganja from the joint possession of three accused persons including the applicant. The charge sheet has been submitted against the applicant. The applicant has no criminal history. 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 applicant is languishing in jail since 23.03.2025. 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

¶11

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.

¶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 record prima facie reveals that the accused is in jail since March, 2025. The recovery of contraband ganja of 67 kg 300 gram has been recovered from the diggi of the car, in which accused was travelling. The charge sheet has been submitted. The arrest and recovery has been made in absence of independent witness. The compliance of mandatory provisions of N.D.P.S. Act are subject to adjudication in trial, which is pending. Without touching the merit of the case, this bail application is allowed .

¶14

The accused/applicant 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 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].

¶15

The accused-applicant shall cooperate in judicial process for fair and speedy disposal.

¶16

Order Date :- 1.8.2025

¶17

Mini

¶18

Avnish Saxena,J.)

¶19

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

Veerpal v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Veerpal 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

Rizwana Begam vs State of U.P.

Talib vs State of U.P.

Rambabu Singh vs Union of India

Sharukh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Shivam vs State of U.P.

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