Monish Vs State of U.P.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14090 of 2026

¶3

Monish

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus
State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rajesh Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶6

Court No. - 69

¶7

HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.

¶8

1. Heard Sri Satendra Narayan Singh, holding brief of Sri Rajesh Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Manoj Gautam, learned AGA for the State-respondents and perused the record.

¶9

2. The present bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been filed on behalf of applicant with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 150 of 2026, under Section 8/21/29 NDPS Act, registered at Police Station Gangoh, District Saharanpur during pendency of the trial.

¶10

3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case and he has been languishing in jail since 24.3.2026. It is further submitted that 50gram of smack is said to have been recovered from the possession of the applicant, which is much below the commercial quantity, however, it is submitted that mandatory provisions of Sections 50 of NDPS Act have not been complied with as the alleged recovery has not been made in the presence of any gazetted officer. It is also submitted that the applicant undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty, if granted. It has also been pointed out that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.

¶11

BAIL No. 14090 of 2026

¶12

2

¶13

4 . On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and it is submitted that consent of the applicant has been obtained.

¶14

5. As per allegation in the FIR, 50gram of smack is said to have been recovered from the possession of the applicant, which is much below the commercial quantity, however, it is submitted that mandatory provisions of Sections 50 of NDPS Act have not been complied with as the alleged recovery has not been made in the presence of any gazetted officer.

¶15

6. Upon considering the totality of facts, nature and the evidence reflected from record and also taking into consideration the provision of Section 37 of the NDPS Act and in view of the law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in Union of India vs. Shiv Shanker Kesari, 2007 (7) SCC 798 and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for bail. Hence, the present bail application is ALLOWED .

¶16

7 . Let the applicant- Monish involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions :-

¶17

(i) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶18

(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

¶19

(iii) 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 351 of B.N.S.S.

¶20

(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall

¶21

BAIL No. 14090 of 2026

¶22

3

¶23

not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in the trial court.

¶24

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.

¶25

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

¶26

9. It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.

¶27

(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)

¶28

May 5, 2026 Abhishek

¶29

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

Monish v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Monish 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

Varun Sharma vs State of U.P.

Ranjeet vs State of U.P.

Mohan vs State of U.P.

Rais Ahmad Vs State of U.P.

Avadhesh Giri Vs State of U.P.

Intzar @ Mota Vs State of U.P.