Neeraj Vats @ Neeru Vs State of U.P.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33079 of 2025

Neeraj Vats @ Neeru

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

¶5

State of U.P.	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Narendra Kumar, Yogendra Pal Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶6

Court No. - 69

¶7

HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.

¶8

Heard Sri Narendra Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Shiv Dutt Shukla, learned AGA for the State-respondents and perused the record.

¶9

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. 415 of 2025 under Section 8/20 NDPS Act, registered at Police Station Phase-2, District Gautam Budh Nagar, during pendency of the trial.

¶10

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and co-accused Himanshu Jatav has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 23.3.2026 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 33163 of 2025. It is further submitted that 182 kg of ganja is said to have been recovered from joint possession of the applicant and four co-accused persons and mandatory provisions of sections 50 and 52A of NDPS Act have not been complied with. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history to his credit and he is in jail since 29.8.2025. 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

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and submits that mandatory provisions of section 52A NDPS Act have been complied with and the alleged recovery has been made from the container in compliance of section 50 NDPS Act.

¶12

182 kg of ganja is said to have been recovered from a container in which the applicant and three other accused persons were travelling. Applicant and two accused persons were arrested and fourth accused person is said to have fled away and nothing is said to have been recovered from conscious possession of the applicant as the alleged contraband is said to have been recovered from joint possession of the

¶13

BAIL No. 33079 of 2025

¶14

2

¶15

applicant and other accused persons. The applicant has no criminal history to his credit and he is in jail since 29.8.2025.

¶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, 2007 (7) SCC 798 and Nadeem Ahmad vs. State of West Bengal 2025 LawSuit (SC) 1134 (2025 INSC 993), 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.

¶17

Let the applicant Neeraj Vats @ Neeru 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 :-

¶18

(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.

¶19

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

¶20

(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.

¶21

(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.

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

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.

¶25

April 23, 2026 Madhurima

¶26

(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)

¶27

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

Neeraj Vats @ Neeru v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neeraj Vats @ Neeru 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

Similar cases

Sushant Singh Dhakrey and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Dharmveer Singh vs State of U.P.

Yaseen Pathan @ Yaseen Ghoda vs State of U.P.

Jitendra Vs State of U.P.

Nanhe @ Bagla vs State of U.P.

Nazim Ansari Vs State of U.P.