Allowed¶14

Irfan @ Chawanii v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC14 Jul 2025BAIL/3693/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

NDPS bail allowed; Sections 8/22 NDPS Act 1985; Section 50 NDPS compliance deferred to trial; Section 37 NDPS rigour; Alprazolam 156 gram alleged commercial quantity; no independent witness of arrest/recovery; charge-sheet filed; custody since 26.08.2024; bail is rule jail exception; State of Rajasthan v. Balchand (1977) 4 SCC 308; Gudikanti Narasimhulu (1978) 1 SCC 240; Mohd. Muslim (2023) 18 SCC 166; Article 21; Allahabad High Court; Avnish Saxena, J.; personal bond with two sureties; Case Crime No. 359 of 2024, Kotwali Dehat, Saharanpur.

What did the court decide?

Enlargement on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned. ¶14

Irfan @ Chawanii Vs State of U.P. — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Enlargement on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant-accused Irfan @ Chawanii, charged under Sections 8/22 of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 (alleged recovery of 156 gram Alprazolam, claimed by the AGA to exceed commercial quantity), should be enlarged on bail.

¶6

Court's answer

Relying on Balchand (bail is the rule, jail the exception) and Gudikanti Narasimhulu, and weighing accusations, evidence, severity of punishment, character of the accused, possibility of presence at trial, witness-tampering apprehension and public interest, the court found it a fit case for grant of bail without expressing any opinion on the merits.

¶11

Ratio / Principle

Findings from record: the accused was apprehended and contraband recovered, but there was no independent witness of arrest and recovery.

¶13

Key takeaways

Compliance with the mandatory provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act was left subject to adjudication in the pending trial rather than decided at the bail stage.ratio¶13
Without touching the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.ratio¶13
The accused-applicant is to be enlarged on bail subject to furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Avnish Saxena, J., Court No. 87, Order dated 15.7.2025, Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:114010) allowed the bail application of Irfan @ Chawanii, an accused under Sections 8/22 of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 in Case Crime No. 359 of 2024, P.S. Kotwali Dehat, District Saharanpur, involving an alleged recovery of 156 gram Alprazolam, which learned AGA submitted exceeded commercial quantity, with charge-sheet already filed. The court noted absence of any independent witness to the arrest and recovery, explanation of a two-case criminal history, custody since 26.08.2024, and left compliance of mandatory NDPS provisions to trial adjudication. Relying on State of Rajasthan v. Balchand (1977) 4 SCC 308, Gudikanti Narasimhulu (1978) 1 SCC 240 and Mohd. Muslim (2023) 18 SCC 166 (rigour of Section 37 NDPS not an obstacle to adjudicating liberty), bail was granted without touching the merits, subject to a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:114010

¶2

Court No. - 87

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3693 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Irfan @ Chawanii Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Singh Bais Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Avnish Saxena,J.

¶6

The present bail application has been moved by the applicantaccused Irfan @ Chawanni for the offence punishable under Section 8/22 of N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 in Case Crime No. 359 of 2024, Police Station- Kotwali Dehat, District- Saharanpur.

¶7

Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh Bais, learned advocate, appears on behalf of applicant and submits that the accused-applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case, wherein the recovery of 156 gram of Alprazolam has been shown from the possession of the accused-applicant. 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 criminal history of two cases has been explained of the supplementary affidavit. The applicant is languishing in jail since 26.08.2024. As such, he prays that the accused/applicant be enlarged on bail.

¶8

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the bail application and submits that the recovered contraband of Alprazolam is more than the commercial quantity as the confiscated item is 156 gram recovered from the possession of the applicant. It is also submitted that charge-sheet has already been submitted against the accusedapplicant.

¶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

¶11

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 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 perusal of the records reveals that the accused has been apprehended by the police party and contraband has been recovered. There is no independent witness of arrest and recovery. The charge sheet has been submitted against the accused-applicant. The criminal history of two cases shown against the accused has been explained. The compliance of mandatory provisions of N.D.P.S. Act are subject to adjudication in trial, which is pending. The applicant is languishing in jail since 26.08.2024. Without touching the merit of the case, this bail application is allowed .

¶14

Let the accused applicant be enlarged on bail subject to furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

¶15

Order Date :- 15.7.2025 Mini

¶16

(Avnish Saxena,J.)

¶17

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

Irfan @ Chawanii v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Irfan @ Chawanii 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