Rautan Singh Vs State of U.P.

Heard Sri Deepanshu Jadon, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Ms. Ifrah Islam, learned State Law Officer and perused the material placed on record.

¶11

By means of the present application, the applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 612 of 2025, under Sections 21/22 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Police Station - Highway, District - Mathura, during the pendency of trial.

¶12

As per the prosecution story, 149 grams of alprazolam powder is stated to have been recovered from the possession of the applicant by police on 3.7.2025 at about 07:40 PM.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and to victimize him. No incriminating article has been recovered from the possession of the applicant. There is no independent witness to support the prosecution version. There is no chemical analyst report which indicates that the alleged recovery is a contraband article. The quantity of contraband has been inflated by the police just to make it fall within the category of commercial quantity.

¶14

Learned counsel has further stated that there is a significant discrepancy in the arrest memo, which initially states that one polythene was recovered from the applicant's pocket, but later records that two polythenes were

¶15

BAIL No. 31783 of 2025

¶16

2

¶17

weighed during the contraband assessment. There is no compliance of Sections 50 & 52A of NDPS Act with regard to search and seizure. The applicant has criminal history of three cases which has been explained. He is languishing in jail since 4.7.2025 and deserves to be released on bail. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial.

¶18

Per contra learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶19

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusal of record and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment as well totality of facts and circumstances and also taking into consideration the discrepancy in the arrest memo coupled by the fact that there is no compliance of mandatory provision of Section 50 & 52A of NDPS Act, at this stage without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail. The bail application is allowed .

¶20

Let the applicant- Rautan Singh , who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶21

i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during trial.

¶22

ii) The applicant will not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses.

¶23

iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed.

¶24

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

¶25

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶26

September 23, 2025 Siddhant

¶27

(Krishan Pahal,J.)

¶28

Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rautan Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rautan Singh 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases