Awadhesh Lodhi Vs State of U.P.

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. 174 of 2026 under Sections 21/22 NDPS Act, registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Mathura during pendency of the trial.

¶13

It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and 160 gram of Alprazolam is said to have been recovered from the possession of the applicant, however, mandatory provision of section 50 of NDPS Act has not been complied with as the alleged recovery has not been made in the presence of any gazetted officer. It is further submitted that applicant is languishing in jail since 12.3.2026 and he 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.

¶14

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and submits that mandatory provision of section 50 of NDPS Act has been complied with as consent of the applicant was obtained before conducting his personal search.

¶15

As per the FIR, 160 gram of Alprazolam is said to have been recovered from the possession of the applicant. However, it is submitted that mandatory provision of section 50 of NDPS Act has not been complied with as the alleged recovery has not been made in the presence of any gazetted officer. Applicant is languishing in jail since 12.3.2026.

¶16

Upon considering the totality of facts, nature and evidence reflected from record, 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,

¶17

BAIL No. 16499 of 2026

¶18

2

¶19

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.

¶20

Let the applicant Awadhesh Lodhi 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 :-

¶21

(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.

¶22

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

¶23

(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.

¶24

(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in the trial court.

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

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.

¶28

May 14, 2026 Madhurima

¶29

(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)

¶30

Digitally signed by :- MADHURIMA GARG High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Awadhesh Lodhi v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Awadhesh Lodhi 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

Bablu and Another vs State of U.P.

Mohd Fardeen vs State of U.P.

Khalik vs State of U.P.

Ravishankar Vs State of U.P.

Prashant Chauhan Vs State of U.P.

Rajneesh Dwivedi Vs State of U.P.