Allowed

Sangeeta Devi v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC10 Sept 2025BAIL/27257/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Woman applicant sought bail for alleged possession of over two kilograms of afeem under Sections 8/18 NDPS Act. Counsel cited non-compliance of Sections 42, 50, 52A and absence of independent witnesses. Court considered Section 37 constraints, prima facie assessment, and granted bail with bond and sureties subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Release on personal bond with two reliable heavy sureties, subject to conditions against tampering, criminal activity, witness intimidation, and regular trial attendance.

Sangeeta Devi Vs State of U.P. — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27257 of 2025

Sangeeta Devi

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State of U.P.

	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: A.Z.Khan
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.
Court No.- 87

¶7

HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J.

¶8

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

¶9

This bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been moved on behalf of accused-applicant Sangeeta Devi, seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.285 of 2025, under Section 8/18 of N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station Sadar Bazar, District Saharanpur.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the accused-applicant is innocent. She has been falsely implicated in this very case crime number and is languishing in jail since 3.7.2025. It is stated in the FIR that 2 Kg 802 gram of afeem has been recovered from the possession of the accused which is little more to commercial quantity. It is further contended that mandatory provisions of Sections 42, 50, 52A of N.D.P.S Act has not been duly complied with by the competent authority in this case. No independent witness has been examined in this case during the course of investigation by the I.O. It is argued that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and conclusion of trial will take sufficiently long and there is no likelihood of accused applicant fleeing from course of justice or tampering with evidence in case of release on bail. Accused applicant is woman. Hence, bail has been prayed for.

¶11

Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the the prayer for bail and submits that 2 Kg 802 gram afeem has been recovered from the conscious possession of the accused which is more than the commercial

¶12

BAIL No. 27257 of 2025

¶13

¶14

quantity. It is submitted that the provisions of Section 50 N.D.P.S. Act has been duly complied with by the authority in this case.

¶15

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:-

¶16

"37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)-

¶17

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

¶18

(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-

¶19

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

¶20

(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.

¶21

(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."

¶22

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.

¶23

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

¶24

".....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......"

¶25

(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."

¶26

In the decisions in Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India 2024 (7) SCC 576,

¶27

BAIL No. 27257 of 2025

¶28

¶29

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 understands.

¶30

After perusing the record in the light of submission advanced by learned counsel for applicant and learned AGA and considering all above facts and circumstances, the nature of accusations, severity of the punishment, period of detention in jail 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.

¶31

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶32

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

¶33

i. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence.

¶34

ii. The applicant will not indulge in any criminal activity.

¶35

iii. The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and co-operate in the trial.

¶36

iv. The applicant will appear regularly on each and every date fixed by the trial court, unless her personal appearance is exempted through counsel by the court concerned.

¶37

In the event of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the court below will be at liberty to proceed to cancel her bail.

¶38

September 11, 2025 RA

¶39

(Santosh Rai,J.)

¶40

Digitally signed by :- RAZIQ ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sangeeta Devi v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sangeeta Devi v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases