Haarish vs State of U.P.

The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to release the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.333 of 2025, under Section 8/20 of N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station-Pakbara, District-Moradabad, during the pendency of the trial.

¶11

Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the merely on the basis of recovery of 1.05 Kilogram 'charas' applicant has been falsely implicated. Though, the measurement of 'charas' was conduced alongwith the bag as the commercial quantity of 'charas' is above 1 kilogram. It is further submitted that recovery of aforesaid substance 'charas', the police has not properly complied with Section 105 Rule 18 of BNSS by not sending the video footage to the concerned magistrate within 48 hours. It is lastly submitted that charge sheet has been filed by the police, therefore, there is no requirement for custodial interrogation. The applicant has no criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 20.11.2025. In case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶12

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶13

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of offence,

¶14

BAIL No. 45133 of 2025

¶15

2

¶16

evidence, complicity of the accused and taking into account overcrowded jails and heavy pendency of criminal cases before the trial courts as well as considering the mandate of the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Kapil Wadhawan vs Central Bureau of Investigation in SLP No.16953 of 2025 decided on 11.12.2025 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶17

Let the applicant- Haarish involved in the aforementioned crime be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and 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 cooperate in the trial/investigation sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶20

iii. The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶21

iv. The applicant shall attend in accordance with the conditions of the bond executed by him.

¶22

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

¶23

Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶24

It is made clear that the applicant shall be released on the basis of computer generated copy of this order, downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad and verified by the concerned counsel with the undertaking that the certified copy will be filed within 15 days.

¶25

It is further directed that the trial court shall send the release order to the concerned jail through Bail Order Management System (BOMS) to ensure early release of the applicant.

¶26

BAIL No. 45133 of 2025

¶27

3

¶28

Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the applicant through concerned Jail Superintendent via e-mail or e-prison portal in compliance of the order of the Apex Court in the case of Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail, In Re: Suo Motu Writ Petition (Crl.) No.4 of 2021 decided on 31.01.2023 reported in (2024) 10 SCC 685 .

¶29

January 27, 2026 Imtiyaz

¶30

(Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.)

¶31

Digitally signed by :- IMTIYAZ AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Haarish v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Haarish 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

Alok Kumar vs State of U.P.

Aman Verma vs State of U.P.

Neetu vs State of U.P.

Jagroop vs State of U.P.

Aman Verma vs State of U.P.

Karan vs State of U.P.