Allowed¶13

Golu Yadav v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC5 Aug 2025BAIL/22230/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

NDPS bail; Section 37 N.D.P.S. Act; Section 50 compliance; Section 52A sampling Standing Order No.1 of 1989 dated 13.6.1989; 9.3 kg ganja recovery; Union of India vs. Shiv Shankar Keshari (2007) 7 SCC 798; reasonable grounds Section 37(1)(b)(ii); Article 21; Golu Yadav; Case Crime No. 286 of 2025; Kotwali Hata; Kushinagar; CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 22230 of 2025; Allahabad High Court; 2025:AHC:133229; bail conditions Sections 229-A, 174-A IPC, Sections 82, 313 Cr.P.C.; Siddharth J.; 6.8.2025.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to the applicant Golu Yadav in Case Crime No. 286 of 2025 on furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount, subject to the conditions in paragraphs 14-18 of the order; identity and residence proof of applicant and sureties to be verified before bonds are accepted. ¶13

Golu Yadav Vs State of U.P. — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶13

Issue for consideration

Whether the accused-applicant, involved in Case Crime No. 286 of 2025 under Section 8/20 of the N.D.P.S. Act (alleged recovery of 9.3 kg ganja), is entitled to bail notwithstanding the restrictions of Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act, in view of the contention of non-compliance of Section 50 and of the sampling procedure.

¶8

Court's answer

Considering the facts, the arguments of the parties, the ratio of Union of India vs. Shiv Shankar Keshari, (2007) 7 SCC 798, the larger mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution, the nature of accusations and evidence, severity of punishment, character and circumstances of the accused, possibility of securing presence at trial, apprehension of witness tampering and public interest, and without expressing any opinion on the merits, the court held it a fit case for grant of bail.

¶12

Ratio / Principle

The applicant was directed to be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount, subject to conditions: presence before the trial court on each date (failure inviting action under Section 229-A IPC); consequences of misuse of liberty through proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. and proceedings under Section 174-A IPC; and compulsory personal presence at opening of the case, framing of charge and recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.; breach of conditions to be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail allowed under Sections 8/20 N.D.P.S. Act (Case Crime No. 286 of 2025, P.S. Kotwali Hata, District Kushinagar; alleged recovery of 9.3 kg ganja). Applicant in jail since 14.05.2025 with no criminal history. Counsel urged non-compliance of Section 50 N.D.P.S. Act and violation of Standing Order No. 1 of 1989 (sampling) under Section 52A; State invoked the stringent 'reasonable grounds' standard of Section 37(1)(b)(ii). The Court, applying the ratio in Union of India vs. Shiv Shankar Keshari, (2007) 7 SCC 798 (bail court under Section 37 does not record a finding of not guilty), along with the larger mandate of Article 21 and usual bail factors, granted bail without expressing any opinion on merits, on a personal bond and two sureties, imposing conditions enforceable through Sections 229-A and 174-A IPC and Sections 82 and 313 Cr.P.C. (Hon'ble Siddharth, J., High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Order Date 6.8.2025, Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:133229).

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:133229

¶2

Court No. - 47

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 22230 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Golu Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Aashirwad Mishra,Sanjay Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

This bail application has been preferred by the accused-applicant, Golu Yadav, who is involved in Case Crime No.286 of 2025, under Section 8/20 of N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station- Kotwali Hata, District- Kushinagar.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive, on the basis of false and planted recovery of 9.3 kg of Ganja and there is no public witness of the alleged recovery. It is further contended that mandatory provision of Section 50 of N.D.P.S Act has not been complied with. At the stage of consideration of bail it cannot be decided whether offer given to the applicant and his consent obtained was voluntary. These are the questions of fact which can be determined only during trial and not at the present stage. In case of prima facie non-compliance of mandatory provision of Section 50 the accused is entitled to be released on bail within the meaning of Section 37 of N.D.P.S. Act. The procedure of sampling adopted is in violation of Standing Order / Instruction No.1 of 1989 dated 13.6.1989 issued by the Government of India under Section 52 A of N.D.P.S. Act. The applicant has no criminal history. He is in jail since 14.05.2025 and he undertakes that he will not misuse liberty, if granted.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail by contending that

¶10

the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre-trial stage who is involved in supplying contraband, therefore, the applicant does not deserve any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activity. The "reasonable grounds" mentioned in Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of NDPS Act mean something more than prima facie ground. It implies substantial probable causes for believing that accused is not guilty of the offence charged and points to existence of such facts and circumstances which are sufficient to hold that accused is not guilty.

¶11

However the Apex Court in the Case of Union of India vs. Shiv Shankar Keshari, (2007) 7 SCC 798 has held that the court while considering the application for bail with reference to Section 37 of the Act is not called upon to record a finding of not guilty. It is for the limited purpose essentially confined to the question of releasing the accused on bail that the court is called upon to see if there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and records its satisfaction about the existence of such grounds. But the court has not to consider the matter as if it is pronouncing a judgment of acquittal and recording a finding of not guilty.

¶12

Considering the facts of the case and keeping in mind the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, the ratio of the Apex Court's judgment in the case of Union of India vs. Shiv Shankar Keshari, (2007) 7 SCC 798 , 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.

¶13

Let applicant be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions-

¶14

(i) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code;

¶15

(ii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶16

(iii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶17

In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶18

Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶19

Order Date :- 6.8.2025

¶20

Sachin

¶21

Digitally signed by :- SACHIN TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Golu Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Golu Yadav 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