Allowed

Mohit Rathore v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC8 Sept 2025BAIL/25296/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application under Section 483 BNSS for an accused in an NDPS case involving recovery of 3.35 gram intoxicant powder, below commercial quantity. The court noted mandatory compliance requirements of Sections 42, 50 and 52A NDPS Act and allowed bail subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on executing personal bond and two reliable sureties each, subject to conditions including no tampering with evidence and presence before trial court.

Mohit Rathore Vs State of U.P. — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25296 of 2025

Mohit Rathore

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State of U.P.

.....Opposite Party(s)

¶7

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Arvind Sen Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Court No. - 87

¶8

HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the Staterespondents and perused the record.

¶10

This bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been moved on behalf of accused-applicant Mohit Rathore seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 402 of 2025, under Section 8/22 N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station Sikandara, District Agra.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the accused-applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He has not committed any offence as alleged in the First Information Report. Only 3.35 gram intoxicant powder has been shown to be recovered from the possession of the applicant, which is below commercial quantity. He further submitted that the prosecution has not complied with mandatory provision of 42(2), 50 and 52A of the N.D.P.S. Act. The applicant is languishing in jail since 29.06.2025. He has no criminal antecedent and there is no likelihood of his fleeing from course of justice or tampering with evidence in case of release on bail.

¶12

Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute aforesaid facts.

¶13

Regarding bail application under N.D.P.S. Act it is pertinent to mention Section 37 of N.D.P.S. Act. Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act reads as under:-

¶14

"37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of

¶15

BAIL No. 25296 of 2025

¶16

¶17

Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)-

¶18

(a) every offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable;

¶19

(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-

¶20

(i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and

¶21

(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.

¶22

(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."

¶23

Thus, the conditions which courts have to be cognizant of are that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is "not guilty of such offence" and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail, "not guilty" means that it can only be a prima facie determination.

¶24

In State of Punjab Vs. Baldev Singh 1999 (6) SCC 172 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the compliance of Section 50 N.D.P.S. Act is mandatory.

¶25

".....That when an empowered officer or a duly authorised officer acting on prior information is about to search a person, it is imperative for him to inform the person concerned of his right under sub-section (1) of Section 50 of being taken to the nearest gazetted officer or the nearest Magistrate for making the search......"

¶26

(2) That failure to inform the person concerned about the existence of his right to be searched before a gazetted officer or a Magistrate would cause prejudice to an accused."

¶27

In the decisions in Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India 2024 (7) SCC 576, Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) 2024(8) SCC 254 and Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana AIR 2025 SC 1388, it has been held that the requirement of informing a person of grounds for arrest is a mandatory requirement of Article 22(1) and also that the information of the grounds for arrest must be provided to the arrested person in such a manner that sufficient knowledge of the basic facts confuting the grounds imparted and communicate to the arrested person effectively in the language which he

¶28

BAIL No. 25296 of 2025

¶29

¶30

understands.

¶31

Considering all above facts and circumstances, the nature of accusations, twin principles as laid down in Section 37 of N.D.P.S. Act, quantum of recovery (below commercial quantity), period of detention in jail, severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness and prima facie case, but without commenting on merit of case, a case for bail is made out.

¶32

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶33

Let the accused-applicant, Mohit Rathore involved in above mentioned case crime number be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each, in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:

¶34

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

¶35

(ii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in Court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶36

(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A I.P.C./269 B.N.S.

¶37

(iv) In case the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C./84 B.N.S.S. is issued and the applicants fail 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 I.P.C./209. B.N.S.

¶38

(v) 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./351 B.N.S.S. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶39

BAIL No. 25296 of 2025

¶40

¶41