Allahabad High Court
Padmdhar Singh Alias Yash Alias Aman … vs State Of U.P. on 10 April, 2026
Author: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
Bench: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC:79838
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2472 of 2026
Padmdhar Singh Alias Yash Alias Aman Singh
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Ranjeet Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 9
HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. This is the second bail application of the applicant. By means of the present bail application, the applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.77 of 2024, under Sections 8/20 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as ?NDPS Act?) and Section 307/34 IPC, Police Station- Atarra, District- Banda, during the pendency of trial.
3. The first bail application being Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.23050 of 2024 was rejected by this Court on 12.08.2024, and following order was passed:-
“1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. By means of the present bail application, the applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 77 of 2024, under Section 8/20 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as ??NDPS Act?) and 307/34 IPC, Police Station- Atarra, District- Banda, during the pendency of trial.
3. The prosecution story as unfolded from the First Information Report (FIR) is that alleged Contraband (Ganja), which has been recovered from the applicant and other coaccused is 60 kgs. from Honda City bearing registration No.UP90 Y4801. The sample was sent for chemical analysis.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and provision of Section 50 of NDPS Act has not been complied with. It is further contended that the vehicle does not belong to the applicant. Further the applicant is languishing in jail since 07.04.2024.
5. Counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon Standing Instruction dated 15.03.88 wherein in para 1.6, quantity of different drugs required in the sample has been mentioned.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon judgment of Apex Court in Simarnjit Singh vs. State of Punjab 2023 Live Law (SC) 570 .
7. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail application and has invited the attention of the Court to Annexure C.A.1 wherein the report of FSL, Prayagraj has come and after chemical analysis, the alleged Contraband was found to be Ganja. He then submitted that Clause 1.6 of Standing Instructions have been complied with and 50 grams of Ganja was sent for chemical analysis. The quantity required for sample in case of Opium, Ganja and Charas is 24 grams. He then contended that the judgment relied upon by the applicant is in regard to conviction appeal, which was heard by the Apex Court.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
9. This is a case where contraband (Charas) amounting to 5 kgs. has been recovered from the possession of the applicant and other co-accused.
10. Section 37 of the NDPS Act governs the field for grant of bail in offences which are cognizable and non-bailable. Section 37 is extracted here as under;
“37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)-
(a) every offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable;
(b) no person accused of an offence punishable for offences under section 19 or section 24 or section 27A and also for offences involving commercial quantity shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless-
(i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and
(ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
(2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in clause (b) of sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law for the time being in force, on granting of bail.”
11. According to the aforesaid provisions, the Court, before granting bail, has to record reason that there are reasonable ground that the applicant is not guilty of such offence and furthermore that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
12. Apex Court, while dealing with aforesaid provision in case of Union of India Vs. Ram Samujh and Another, (1999) 9 SCC 429, held as under;
“7. It is to be borne in mind that the aforesaid legislative mandate is required to be adhered and followed. It should be borne in mind that in murder case, accused commits murder of one or two persons, while those persons who are dealing in narcotic drugs are instruments in causing death or in inflicting death blow to number of innocent young victims, who are vulnerable: it causes deleterious effects and deadly impact on the society; they are a hazard to the society; even if they are released temporarily, in all probability, they would continue their nefarious activities of trafficking and/or dealing in intoxicants clandestinely. Reason may be large stake and illegal profit involved. This Court, dealing with the contention with regard to punishment under NDPS Act, has succinctly observed about the adverse effect of such activities in Durand Didien v. Chief Secretary, Union Territory of Goa. (1990) 1 SCC 95 as under:
“24. With deep concern, we may point out that the organised activities of the underworld and the clandestine smuggling of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances into this country and illegal trafficking in such drugs and substances have led to drug addiction among a sizeable section of the public, particularly the adolescents and students of both sexes and the menace has assumed serious and alarming proportion in the recent years. Therefore, in order to effectively control and eradicate this proliferating and booming devastating menace, causing deleterious effects and deadly impact on the society as a whole, the Parliament in the wisdom has made effective provisions by introducing this Act 81 of 1985 specifying mandatory minimum imprisonment and fine,”
8. To check the menace of dangerous drugs flooding the market, the Parliament has provided that the person accused of offences under the NDPS Act should not be released on bail during trial unless mandatory conditions provided in Section 37, namely,
(i) there are reasonable grounds for believing that accused is not guilty of such offence; and
(ii) that he is not likely to commit while on bail.”
13. In Union of India Vs. Shiv Shanker Kesari, (2007) 7 SCC 798, Apex Court elaborated and explained the conditions for granting of bail as provided under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Relevant paragraph Nos. 6 and 7 are extracted here as under;
“6. As the provision itself provides no person shall be granted bail unless the two conditions are satisfied. They are; the satisfaction of the Court that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. Both the conditions have to be satisfied. If either of these two conditions is not satisfied, the bar operates and the accused cannot be released on bail.
7. The expression used in Section 37(1)(b)(ii) is “reasonable grounds”. The expression means something more than prima facie grounds. It connotes substantial probable causes for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence charged and this reasonable belief contemplated in turn points to existence of such facts and circumstances as are sufficient in themselves to justify recording of satisfaction that the accused is not guilty of the offence charged.”
14. In Union of India Vs. Rattan Mallik @ Habul, (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 831, Apex Court observed as under;
“14. We may, however, hasten to add that while considering an application for bail with reference to Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the Court is not called upon to record a finding of `not guilty’. At this stage, it is neither necessary nor desirable to weigh the evidence meticulously to arrive at a positive finding as to whether or not the accused has committed offence under the NDPS Act. What is to be seen is whether there is reasonable ground for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence(s) he is charged with and further that he is not likely to commit an offence under the said Act while on bail. The satisfaction of the Court about the existence of the said twin conditions is for a limited purpose and is confined to the question of releasing the accused on bail.”
15. In State of Kerala Etc. Vs. Rajesh Etc. AIR 2020 SC 721, Apex Court considered the scope of Section 37 and relying upon earlier decision in Ram Samujh (supra) held as under;
“20. The scheme of Section 37 reveals that the exercise of power to grant bail is not only subject to the limitations contained under Section 439 of the CrPC, but is also subject to the limitation placed by Section 37 which commences with non-obstante clause. The operative part of the said section is in the negative form prescribing the enlargement of bail to any person accused of commission of an offence under the Act, unless twin conditions are satisfied. The first condition is that the prosecution must be given an opportunity to oppose the application; and the second, is that the Court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence. If either of these two conditions is not satisfied, the ban for granting bail operates.
21. The expression “reasonable grounds” means something more than prima facie grounds. It contemplates substantial probable causes for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. The reasonable belief contemplated in the provision requires existence of such facts and circumstances as are sufficient in themselves to justify satisfaction that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. In the case on hand, the High Court seems to have completely overlooked the underlying object of Section 37 that in addition to the limitations provided under the CrPC, or any other law for the time being in force, regulating the grant of bail, its liberal approach in the matter of bail under the NDPS Act is indeed uncalled for.”
16. The Apex Court in Union of India vs. Prateek Shukla AIR 2021 SC 1509 held that merely recording the submissions of the parties does not amount to an indication of a judicial or, for that matter, a judicious application of mind. The provision of Section 37 of the NDPS Act provide the legal norms which have to be applied in determining whether a case for grant of bail is made out.
17. In State (NCT of Delhi) Narcotics Control Bureau Vs. Lokesh Chadha (2021) 5 SCC 724 the Court held as under :
“……Section 37 of the NDPS Act stipulates that no person accused of an offence punishable for the offences under section 19 or section 24 or section 27A and also for offences involving commercial quantity shall be released on bail, where the Public Prosecutor oppose the application, unless the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.”
18. In a recent judgment of Union of India through Narcotics Control Bureau, Lucknow vs. Mohd. Nawaz Khan (2021) 10 SCC 100, Hon’ble Apex Court while cancelling the bail of accused held that the High Court should consider that in case the accused is enlarged on bail, there should be reasonable ground to believe that he will not commit an offence in future. Relevant paras of the judgment reads hereas under :
“23. Based on the above precedent, the test which the High Court and this Court are required to apply while granting bail is whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused has not committed an offence and whether he is likely to commit any offence while on bail. Given the seriousness of offences punishable under the NDPS Act and in order to curb the menace of drug-trafficking in the country, stringent parameters for the grant of bail under the NDPS Act have been prescribed.
…..
25. We shall deal with each of these circumstances in turn. The respondent has been accused of an offence under Section 8 of the NDPS Act, which is punishable under Sections 21, 27-A, 29, 60(3) of the said Act. Section 8 of the Act prohibits a person from possessing any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance. The concept of possession recurs in Sections 20 to 22, which provide for punishment for offences under the Act. In Madan Lal v. State of H.P. [Madan Lal v. State of H.P., (2003) 7 SCC 465 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 1664] this Court held that : (SCC p. 472, paras 19-23 & 26)
“19. Whether there was conscious possession has to be determined with reference to the factual backdrop. The facts which can be culled out from the evidence on record are that all the accused persons were travelling in a vehicle and as noted by the trial court they were known to each other and it has not been explained or shown as to how they travelled together from the same destination in a vehicle which was not a public vehicle.
20. Section 20(b) makes possession of contraband articles an offence. Section 20 appears in Chapter IV of the Act which relates to offences for possession of such articles. It is submitted that in order to make the possession illicit, there must be a conscious possession.
21. It is highlighted that unless the possession was coupled with the requisite mental element i.e. conscious possession and not mere custody without awareness of the nature of such possession, Section 20 is not attracted.
22. The expression “possession” is a polymorphous term which assumes different colours in different contexts. It may carry different meanings in contextually different backgrounds. It is impossible, as was observed in Supt. & Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, W.B. v. Anil Kumar Bhunja [Supt. & Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, W.B. v. Anil Kumar Bhunja, (1979) 4 SCC 274 : 1979 SCC (Cri) 1038] to work out a completely logical and precise definition of “possession” uniform[ly] applicable to all situations in the context of all statutes.
23. The word “conscious” means awareness about a particular fact. It is a state of mind which is deliberate or intended.
***
26. Once possession is established, the person who claims that it was not a conscious possession has to establish it, because how he came to be in possession is within his special knowledge. Section 35 of the Act gives a statutory recognition of this position because of the presumption available in law. Similar is the position in terms of Section 54 where also presumption is available to be drawn from possession of illicit articles.”
26. What amounts to “conscious possession” was also considered in Dharampal Singh v. State of Punjab [Dharampal Singh v. State of Punjab, (2010) 9 SCC 608 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1431], where it was held that the knowledge of possession of contraband has to be gleaned from the facts and circumstances of a case. The standard of conscious possession would be different in case of a public transport vehicle with several persons as opposed to a private vehicle with a few persons known to one another. In Mohan Lal v. State of Rajasthan [Mohan Lal v. State of Rajasthan, (2015) 6 SCC 222 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 881], this Court also observed that the term “possession” could mean physical possession with animus; custody over the prohibited substances with animus; exercise of dominion and control as a result of concealment; or personal knowledge as to the existence of the contraband and the intention based on this knowledge.
28. As regards the finding of the High Court regarding absence of recovery of the contraband from the possession of the respondent, we note that in Union of India v. Rattan Mallik [Union of India v. Rattan Mallik, (2009) 2 SCC 624 : (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 831] , a two-Judge Bench of this Court cancelled the bail of an accused and reversed the finding of the High Court, which had held that as the contraband (heroin) was recovered from a specially made cavity above the cabin of a truck, no contraband was found in the “possession” of the accused. The Court observed that merely making a finding on the possession of the contraband did not fulfil the parameters of Section 37(1)(b) and there was non-application of mind by the High Court.
29. In line with the decision of this Court in Rattan Mallik [Union of India v. Rattan Mallik, (2009) 2 SCC 624 : (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 831], we are of the view that a finding of the absence of possession of the contraband on the person of the respondent by the High Court in the impugned order does not absolve it of the level of scrutiny required under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act.
19. Supreme Court while dealing with the question of possession and application of Section 50 in case of Megh Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 2003 CRI. L.J. 4329, held that word ”possession’ includes conscious possession. Further Section 50 applies in case of personal search of a person and it does not extend to search of a vehicle or container or a bag or premises. Relevant paragraph nos. 9 to 13 and 16 are extracted here as under;
“9. The expression ‘possession’ is a polymorphous term which assumes different colours in different contexts. It may carry different meanings in contextually different backgrounds. It is impossible, as was observed in Superintendent & Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal v. Anil Kumar Bhunja and Ors. (AIR 1980 SC 52), to work out a completely logical and precise definition of “possession” uniformally applicable to all situations in the context of all statutes.
10. The word ‘conscious’ means awareness about a particular fact. It is a state of mind which is deliberate or intended.
11. As noted in Gunwantlal v. The State of M.P. (AIR 1972 SC 1756) possession in a given case need not be physical possession but can be constructive, having power and control over the article in case in question, while the person whom physical possession is given holds it subject to that power or control.
12. The word ‘possession’ means the legal right to possession (See Health v. Drown (1972) (2) All ER 561 (HL). In an interesting case it was observed that where a person keeps his fire arm in his mother’s flat which is safer than his own home, he must be considered to be in possession of the same. (See Sullivan v. Earl of Caithness (1976 (1) All ER 844 (QBD).
13. Once possession is established the person who claims that it was not a conscious possession has to establish it, because how he came to be in possession is within his special knowledge. Section 35 of the Act gives a statutory recognition of this position because of presumption available in law. Similar is the position in terms of Section 54 where also presumption is available to be drawn from possession of illicit articles. This position was highlighted in Madan Lal and Anr. v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2003 (6) SCALE 483).
16. A bare reading of Section 50 shows that it only applies in case of personal search of a person. It does not extend to search of a vehicle or a container or a bag, or premises. (See Kalema Tumba v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. (JT1999 (8) SC 293), The State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (JT1999 (4) SC 595), Gurbax Singh v. State of Haryana(2001(3) SCC 28). The language of Section 50 is implicitly clear that the search has to be in relation to a person as contrasted to search of premises, vehicles or articles. This position was settled beyond doubt by the Constitution Bench in Baldev Singh’s case (supra). Above being the position, the contention regarding non-compliance of Section 50 of the Act is also without any substance.”
20. While dealing with the provision of Section 50 of the Act, Apex Court in case of Dehal Singh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2011 (72) ACC 661, held that Section 50 relates to the search of a person and not of the vehicle and thus there was no requirement for informing the applicant of the right to be searched in presence of a gazetted officer of Magistrate.
21. From perusal of record it is evident that report of FSL had already come where after chemical examination, the Contraband was found to be ??Ganja?? and the report clearly indicates that 50 grams sample was sent for chemical analysis complying the Standing Instructions.
22. In the light of the analysis of the case, as mentioned above, and considering that recovery of huge quantity of contraband (Ganja) is 60 kgs. of which commercial quantity is 20 kgs. and it is beyond the commercial quantity and applicant was apprehended on the spot and was having a conscious and constructive possession over the recovered contraband (Ganja), I do not find any reasonable ground in terms of Section 37 of the NDPS Act to release the applicant on bail.
23. Thus, taking into account the submission made by learned counsel for the parties and the evidence on record and the complicity of the applicant in offence in question, this Court do not find any ground to release the applicant on bail.
24. In the result, the bail application stands rejected. ”
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that other three co-accused, namely, Arun Kumar Shivhare, Omkar Shukla and Vikrant Alia Guddu Singh have already been granted bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 11.04.2025 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No(s).25609 of 2024, 23797 of 2024 and 23048 of 2024, respectively. Apart from this, no other argument has been made by the counsel for the applicant.
5. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that 60 Kgs. contraband (Ganja) has been recovered from the applicant. According to him, applicant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
7. This Court finds that after the insertion of Section 52A, Standing Order No.1 of 1989 was followed. From time to time, Central Government had been issuing notifications in respect of disposal of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, controlled substances and conveyances. The matter in regard to compliance of Section 52A of the Act came up for consideration before Hon?ble Apex Court in case of Narcotics Control Bureau vs. Kashif in Criminal Appeal No.5544 of 2024 arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.12120 of 2024, which was decided on 20.12.2024.
8. Hon?ble Supreme Court considering the legislative intent and the history of the NDPS Act and insertion of Section 52A held that the heading of Section 52A itself leaves no room of doubt that the provision was inserted for an early disposal of the seized narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, as one of the measures required to be taken to implement the provisions of the International Conventions on Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. Relevant paras 20, 21, 23 and 24 of the judgment are extracted here as under :-
?20. Now, so far as Section 52A is concerned, the language employed therein itself is very clear that the said provision was inserted for an early disposal of the seized narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, having regard to the hazardous nature, vulnerability to theft, substitution, constraints of proper storage space and other relevant considerations. Apart from the plain language used in the said section, its Heading also makes it clear that the said provision was inserted for the Disposal of the seized narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. As per the well settled rule of interpretation, the Section Heading or Marginal note can be relied upon to clear any doubt or ambiguity in the interpretation of any provision and to discern the legislative intent. The Section Heading constitutes an important part of the Act itself, and may be read not only as explaining the provisions of the section, but it also affords a better key to the constructions of the provisions of the section which follows than might be afforded by a mere preamble. (Eastern Coalfields Limited vs. Sanjay Transport Agency and Another, (2009) 7 SCC 345)
21. The insertion of Section 52A with the Heading ?Disposal of seized narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances? along with the insertion of the words ?to provide for the forfeiture of property derived from or used in, illicit traffic in narcotics drugs and psychotropic substances, to implement the provisions of International Conventions on Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances?, in the long title of the NDPS Act, by Act 2 of 1989 w.e.f. 29.05.1989, leaves no room of doubt that the said provision of Section 52A was inserted for an early disposal of the seized narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, as one of the measures required to be taken to implement the provisions of the International Conventions on Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. The Heading of Section 52A i.e. Disposal of seized narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances delineates the object and reason of the insertion of said provision and such Heading cannot be underscored. From the bare reading of Section 52A also it is very much discernable that sub-section (1) thereof empowers the Central Government, having regard to the hazardous nature, vulnerability to theft, substitution, constraint of proper storage space or any other relevant consideration, to specify narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances for the purpose of their disposal as soon as may be after their seizure, by such officer and in such manner as the Central Government may determine after following the procedure specified in sub-section (2).
?..
23. As demonstrated above, sub-section (2) of Section 52A specifies the procedure as contemplated in sub-section (1) thereof, for the disposal of the seized contraband or controlled narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. Any deviation or delay in making the application under subsection (2) by the concerned officer to the Magistrate or the delay on the part of the Magistrate in deciding such application could at the most be termed as an irregularity and not an illegality which would nullify or vitiate the entire case of the prosecution. The jurisprudence as developed by the courts so far, makes clear distinction between an ?irregular proceeding? and an ?illegal proceeding.? While an irregularity can be remedied, an illegality cannot be. An irregularity may be overlooked or corrected without affecting the outcome, whereas an illegality may lead to nullification of the proceedings. Any breach of procedure of rule or regulation which may indicate a lapse in procedure, may be considered as an irregularity, and would not affect the outcome of legal proceedings but it can not be termed as an illegality leading to the nullification of the proceedings.
24. Section 52A was inserted only for the purpose of early disposal of the seized contraband drugs and substances, considering the hazardous nature, vulnerability to theft, constraint of proper storage space etc. There cannot be any two opinions on the issue about the early disposal of the contraband drugs and substances, more particularly when it was inserted to implement the provisions of International Convention on the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, however delayed compliance or non-compliance of the said provision by the concerned 23 officer authorised to make application to the Magistrate could never be treated as an illegality which would entitle the accused to be released on bail or claim acquittal in the trial, when sufficient material is collected by the Investigating Officer to establish that the Search and Seizure of the contraband substance was made in due compliance of the mandatory provisions of the Act.?
9. The Apex Court further considered the scope of Section 52A in light of the decision of Constitution Bench in case of Pooran Mal vs. Director of Inspection (Investigation) New Delhi and others, (1974) 1 SCC 345 and Constitution Bench decision in case of State of Punjab vs. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172 as well as decision in case of State of H.P. vs. Pirthi Chand and Another (1996) 2 SCC 37 and State of Punjab vs. Makhan Chand (2004) 3 SCC 453 and held that evidence collected during course of investigation in legal and proper manner and sought to be used in course of trial with regard to the seized contraband substances could not be simply brushed aside on the ground of procedural irregularity if any, committed by the concerned officer authorized in making application to the Magistrate as contemplated under Section 52A of the Act. Relevant paras 31, 32 and 33 of the judgment in case of Kashif (supra) are extracted here as under :-
?31. From the above decisions, the position that emerges is that this Court in catena of decisions, has approved the procedure of spot searches and seizures in compliance with the Standing Orders and the Notifications issued by the NCB and the Central Government, and upheld the convictions on being satisfied about the search and seizure made by the officers as per the provisions of the Act and being satisfied about the scientific evidence of F.S.L. reports etc. Even otherwise, in 28 view of the law laid down by the Constitution Benches in case of Pooran Mal and in case of Baldev Singh, any procedural illegality in conducting the search and seizure by itself, would not make the entire evidence collected thereby inadmissible. The Court would have to decide the admissibility of evidence in the context and the manner in which the evidence was collected and was sought to be used during the course of trial. The evidence collected during the course of investigation in legal and proper manner and sought to be used in the course of trial with regard to the seized contraband substance could not be simply brushed aside, on the ground of procedural irregularity if any, committed by the concerned officer authorised in making application to the Magistrate as contemplated under Section 52A of the Act.
32. Significantly, the Authorised Officer can make the application under subsection (2) of Section 52A for three purposes ? (a) for certifying the correctness of the inventory prepared by him; or (b) taking in presence of such magistrate, photographs of the seized drugs, substances and conveyances and certifying such photographs as true; or (c) allowing to draw representative samples of such drugs or substances, in the presence of such Magistrate, and certifying the correctness of any list of samples so drawn. The use of the conjunction ?OR? made in between the three purposes mentioned therein, itself makes it explicitly clear that the purposes for which the application could be made under sub-section (2) are alternative and not cumulative in nature. Such provision specifying multiple alternative purposes could not be construed as a mandatory provision muchless its non-compliance fatal to the case of prosecution.
33. Though it is true that the inventory certified, photographs taken and the list of samples drawn under sub-section (2) has to be treated by the Court as primary evidence in view of sub-section (3), nonetheless the documents like Panchnama, seizure memo, arrest memo etc. prepared by the Investigating Officer on the spot or during the course of investigation are also primary evidence within the meaning of Section 62 of the Evidence Act, carrying the same evidentiary value as any other primary evidence. Such primary evidence with regard to Search and Seizure of the contraband substance could not be overlooked merely because some lapse or non-compliance is found of Section 52A of the Act.?
10. Moreover, this Court finds that the earlier bail application of the applicant was rejected on 12.08.2024 and the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had granted bail to other three co-accused persons on 11.02.2024, after the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in case of Kashif (supra) was delivered and it seems that this fact is not brought to the notice of the Co-ordinate Bench by learned AGA.
11. This Court finds that the question with regard to fresh argument to be considered in second bail application on those very facts that were available to the accused while his earlier bail application was moved and rejected, came for consideration before Division Bench of this Court in case of Satya Pal vs. State of U.P., 1998 (37) ACC 287. Division Bench relying upon the decision of Apex Court in case of State of Maharastra vs. Buddhikota Subha Rao, AIR 1989 SC 2292 held as under:-
“4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the cases which were cited before the learned single Judge as also before us. We think that the point is well settled by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Buddhikota Subha Rao, AIR 1989 SC 2292. In the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court while disapproving grant of bail by a learned single Judge of the High Court just after two days when a number of bail applications had been dismissed by another learned single Judge of that Court the Supreme Court also considered various other aspects relating to the question as to under what circumstances an application for bail should be considered even a previous application for bail had been rejected. It will be proper to. quote relevant passages from paragraphs 6 and 7 of the said judgment :-
“6. …The question then is whether there was justification for releasing the respondent on bail to facilitate yogic exercises under expert guidance at his residence, albeit under conditions of surveillance, even though Puranik, J. had rejected a more or less similar prayer only two days before? Should this Court refuse to exercise jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution even if it is satisfied that the jurisdiction was wrongly exercised.
7. Liberty occupies a place on pride in our socio-political order. And who knew the value of liberty more than the founding fathers of our Constitution whose liberty was curtailed time and again under Draconian Laws by the colonial rulers. That is why they provided in Article 21 of the Constitution that no person shall be deprived of his personal liberty except according the procedure established by law. It follows therefore that the personal liberty of an individual can be curbed by procedure established by law. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is one such procedural law. The law permits curtailment of liberty of antisocial and anti-national elements. Article 22 casts certain obligations on the authorities in the event of arrest of an individual accused of the commission of a crime against society or the Nation. In cases of under-trial charged with the commission of an offence or offences the Court is generally called upon to decide whether to release him on bail or to commit him to jail. This decision has to be made, mainly in non-bailable cases, having regard to the nature, of the crime, the circumstances in which it was committed, the background of the, accused, the possibility of his jumping bail, the impact that his release may make on the prosecution witnesses, its impact on society and the possibility of retribution, etc. In the present case the successive bail applications preferred by the respondent were rejected on merits having regard to the gravity of the offence alleged to have been committed. Once such application No. 36 of 1989 was rejected by Suresh, J. himself. Undeterred the respondent went on preferring successive applications for bail. All such pending bail applications were rejected by Puranik, J. by a common order on 6th June, 1989. Unfortunately Puranik, J. was not aware of the pendency of yet another bail application No. 995/ 89 otherwise he would have disposed it of by the very same common order. Before the ink was dry on Puranik J.’s order, it was upturned by the impugned order. It is not as if the Court passing the impugned order was not aware of the decision of Puranik, J. in fact there is a reference to the same in the impugned order. Could this be done in the absence of new facts and changed circumstances ? What is important to realise is that in Criminal Application No. 375 of 1989, the respondent had made an identical request as is obvious from one of the prayers (extracted earlier) made therein. Once that application was rejected there was no question of granting a similar prayer. That is virtually overruling the earlier decision without there being a change, in the fact situation. And, when we speak of change, we mean a substantial one which has a direct impact on the earlier decision and not merely cosmetic changes, which are of little or no consequence. Between the two orders there was a gap of only two days and it is nobody’s case that during these two days drastic changes had taken place necessitating the release of the respondent on bail. Judicial discipline, propriety and comity demanded that the impugned order should not have been passed reversing all earlier orders including the one rendered by Puranik, J, only a couple of days before, in the absence of any substantial change in the fact-situation. In such cases it is necessary to act with restraint and circumspection so that the process of the& Court is not abused by a litigant and an impression does not gain ground that the litigant has either successfully avoided one judge or selected another to secure an order, which had hitherto eluded him. In such a situation the proper course, we think, is to direct that; the matter! be placed before the same learned Judge who disposed of the earlier applications. Such a practice or convention would prevent abuse of the process of Court inasmuch as it will prevent an impression being created that a litigant is avoiding or selecting a Court to secure an order to his liking. Such a practice would also discourage the filing of successive bail applications without change of circumstances. Such a practice if adopted would be conducive to judicial discipline and would also save the Court’s time as a judge familiar with the facts would be able to dispose of the subsequent application with despatch. It will also result in consistency. In this view that we take we are fortified by the observations of this Court in paragraph 5 of the judgment in Shahzad Hasan Khan v. Ishtiaq Hasan Khan (1987) 2 SCC 684. For the above reasons we are of the view that there was no justification for passing the impugned order in the absence of a substantial change in the fact-situation. That is what prompted Shetty, J. to describe the impugned order as ‘a bit out of the ordinary.’ Judicial restraint demands that we say no more.”
5. A reading of the above mentioned passage from the judgment of the Supreme court makes it clear that there is no bar in successive bail applications being moved for consideration by the Courts. However the Supreme Court clearly ob-served that the practice suggested would also discourage filing of successive bail applications without change of circumstances. This observation makes it clear that it should be only when some new facts and circumstances have developed after rejection of the previous bail application then only the second bail application should be considered on merit. The learned single Judge who referred this case to be considered by the Division Bench had made the following observations in his referring order;-
“In my view this direction of the Supreme Court is intended at maintaining some degree of finality even to interim orders and not keeping it open to frequent change unless substantial changes in fact-situation are indicated. Otherwise our Courts including’ superior Courts would tie flooded with frivolous repeated prayers for bail as new arguments and new twists on same facts would always be advanced by legal experts. It is therefore, necessary that a decision should be given by a higher Bench on the question if at all it would be open for a Court to allow fresh arguments on the same facts after a former prayer was although specifically the points urged in the subsequent applications were not considered.
We are in complete agreement with the views expressed by the learned single Judge and agree that a second bail application cannot be entertained on the same facts after a formal prayer was rejected although subsequently points urged in the subsequent bail applications were not considered.”
6. Learned counsel for the applicant strenuously wanted to support the view taken by the learned single Judge in the case of Gama v. State of U.P., 1986 ( 23 ) ACC 339. We are not inclined to accept the view taken by the learned single Judge in the said case. It is not uncommon but rather almost an accepted norm that the High Courts while rejecting the bail application do not give reasons for such rejection. Reasons are generally not given as observations tend to influence and affect the trial in pending cases. Therefore, the following observations of the learned single Judge in the case of Gama v. State of U.P.(supra) does not lay down the correct law.
Even though it may be second or third bail application, but unless it is apparent from a reading of the first bail order that the point urged in the subsequent bail applications was also considered and rejected, it cannot be said that the point urged in the second or third bail application would be deemed to have been considered in the first bail application just by implication.
We accordingly overrule this view taken by the learned single Judge in Gama‘s case (supra).”
12. The argument raised from the applicant?s side stands adjudicated on the basis of guidelines summarized by the Apex Court in the recent judgment rendered in case of Kashif (supra).
13. In view of above, the second bail application is stands rejected.
(Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.)
April 10, 2026
SK Goswami