Nanhe @ Bagla vs State of U.P.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4629 of 2026

Nanhe @ Bagla

	Versus .....Applicant(s)
State of U.P.	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: Akash Kumar, Ram Kumar Dubey : G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 69

¶6

HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.

¶7

1. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶8

2. Heard Sri Ram Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri B.P. Singh, learned AGA for the State-respondents and perused the record.

¶9

3. 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. 644 of 2025, under Section 8/20 NDPS Act, registered at Police Station Katghar, District Moradabad, during pendency of the trial.

¶10

4. 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 9.10.2025. It is further submitted that 1120gram of charas which is marginally above the commercial quantity is said to have been recovered from the possession of the applicant, however, it is submitted that mandatory provisions of Sections 50 of NDPS Act have not been complied with as the signature of the gazetted police officer has not been found on the memo of recovery. It is further submitted that applicant is having criminal history of 19 cases, which has been duly explained in the supplementary affidavit. It is also submitted that the applicant undertakes that he will not misuse the

¶11

BAIL No. 4629 of 2026

¶12

2

¶13

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. 5 . On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and it is submitted that alleged recovery has been made in the presence of the gazetted officer, however, he does not dispute the fact that signature of the gazetted police officer has not been found in the memo of recovery. It is further submitted that the applicant is having huge criminal history and some of the cases relate to NDPS Act.

¶14

6. As per allegation in the FIR, 1120gram of charas which is marginally above the commercial quantity is said to have been recovered from the possession of the applicant, however, it is submitted that mandatory provisions of Sections 50 of NDPS Act have not been complied with as though the recovery is said to have been made in the presence of gazetted police officer, however, the signature of the gazetted police officer has not been found on the memo of recovery. The applicant is having criminal history of 19 cases, which has been duly explained in the supplementary affidavit.

¶15

7. 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

8 . Let the applicant- Nanhe @ Bagla 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

¶18

BAIL No. 4629 of 2026

¶19

3

¶20

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.

¶21

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

¶22

(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.

¶23

(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.

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

10. 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 12, 2026 Abhishek

¶29

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

Nanhe @ Bagla v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nanhe @ Bagla 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

Shiv Prasad Mishra Vs State of U.P.

Shivam Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Vikas Kharwar Vs State of U.P.

Bablu and Another vs State of U.P.

Mohd Fardeen vs State of U.P.

Khalik vs State of U.P.