Allowed¶15

Raju Anuragi v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC2 May 2025BAIL/6335/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

NDPS bail granted, Allahabad HC (Avnish Saxena J., 10.7.2025, NC 2025:AHC:110783, Crl. Misc. Bail Appln. 6335/2025) for Raju Anuragi, driver of Innova car, alleged recovery of 47 kg ganja, Case Crime 02/2025 PS Bargarh Chitrakoot, Sections 8/20/29/60 NDPS 1985; charge-sheet filed; recovery without independent witness; alleged Section 50 lapse deferred to pending trial; Section 37 rigour treated as no bar (Mohd. Muslim (2023) 18 SCC 166); 'bail is the rule' (Balchand (1977) 4 SCC 308); Gudikanti factor-matrix; no criminal history; in jail since 03.01.2025; personal bond plus two sureties each.

What did the court decide?

Bail application allowed; the accused applicant (Raju Anuragi) is to be enlarged on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned. ¶15

Raju Anuragi vs State of U.P. — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶15

Issue for consideration

Whether bail may be granted to the accused-applicant in this NDPS matter notwithstanding the statutory rigour under Section 37 of the NDPS Act applicable to bail adjudication in such cases. +1 more

¶13

Court's answer

Adopts as the settled governing premise that bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception, refusal of bail being a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21, taking the ratio of State of Rajasthan v. Balchand @ Baliay ((1977) 4 SCC 308) and quoting its para 2 ('bail, not jail') as illustrative rather than exhaustive.

¶11

Ratio / Principle

Weighing the nature of the accusations and the evidence in support, the severity of punishment conviction would entail, the character of the accused (no criminal history), circumstances peculiar to the accused, the reasonable possibility of securing his presence at trial, the risk of witnesses being tampered with and the larger public/State interest — in the manner of Gudikanti Narasimhulu and Others v. Public Prosecutor — and expressly 'without expressing any opinion on the merits', the Court concluded it is 'a fit case for grant of bail'.

¶12

Key takeaways

Defers adjudication of the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act (including the recovery effected in the absence of an independent witness and the alleged non-compliance of Section 50) to the pending trial, so they do not disqualify immediate bail at the charge-sheet stage; notes the filed charge sheet, absence of criminal history, continuous detention since 03.01.2025, and grants the bail application 'without touching the merit of the case'.ratio¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Court No. 87), Crl. Misc. Bail Application 6335 of 2025, decided 10.7.2025 (Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:110783) — Avnish Saxena, J.: Bail ALLOWED for accused-applicant Raju Anuragi, driver of an Innova car from which 47 kgs. of ganja was allegedly recovered (Case Crime No. 02 of 2025, P.S. Bargarh, Distt. Chitrakoot; offence under Sections 8/20/29/60 NDPS Act, 1985). Charge sheet had been filed; recovery was effected in the absence of an independent witness and the alleged non-compliance of Section 50 NDPS, being a mandatory provision, was left for adjudication at the pending trial. With no criminal history and detention since 03.01.2025, the Judge — relying on State of Rajasthan v. Balchand @ Baliay ((1977) 4 SCC 308) ('bail is the rule', refusal restricting Article 21 liberty), the factor-matrix of Gudikanti Narasimhulu and Ors v. Public Prosecutor (printed therein as '(1928) 1 SCC 24'), and Mohd. Muslim alias Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi) ((2023) 18 SCC 166) (Section 37 NDPS rigour not a bar — the greater the rigour, the quicker the adjudication) — found it a fit case for grant of bail 'without touching the merit of the case', conditioned on a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:110783

¶2

Court No. - 87

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6335 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Raju Anuragi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Raj Narayan Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Avnish Saxena,J.

¶6

Learned AGA has filed counter affidavit today in the Court, which is taken on record.

¶7

The present bail application has been moved by the applicantaccused Raju Anuragi for the offence punishable under Sections 8/20/29/60 of N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 in Case Crime No. 02 of 2025, Police Station- Bargarh, District-Chitrakoot.

¶8

3.Mr. Raj Narayan Singh, learned advocate, appears on behalf of applicant and submits that the accused-applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case, wherein from the Innova Car, the recovery of 47 Kgs. of ganja has been shown from the possession of the accused-applicant and two others. 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. There is no criminal history to the credit of the accused-applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 03.01.2025. As such, he prays that the accused/applicant be enlarged on bail.

¶9

Per contra , learned AGA opposed the bail and submits that charge sheet is submitted against the accused-applicant. The vehicle is carrying 47 kgs. of Ganja . The accused-applicant is the driver of the vehicle.

¶10

Taken into consideration the rival submissions made by the parties and perused the record.

¶11

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

¶12

liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the 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, (1928) 1 SCC 24 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

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.

¶14

The perusal of the records reveals that the alleged recovery of Innova Car and the ganja was in absence of independent witness. The charge sheet is submitted. The mandatory provisions of N.D.P.S. Act are subject to adjudication in trial, which is pending. There is no criminal history to the credit of the accused-applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 03.01.2025. Without touching the merit of the case, this bail application is allowed .

¶15

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.

¶16

Order Date :- 10.7.2025/Abhishek Sri.

¶17

(Avnish Saxena,J.)

¶18

Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK RANJAN SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Raju Anuragi v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju Anuragi 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

Irfan @ Chawanii vs State of U.P.

Sarvesh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Rahul Pal vs Union of India

Deepak Alias Manish vs State of U.P.

Sharma Sahni vs State of U.P.

Mohan Lal vs State of U.P.