Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, J.
Shadab – Applicant
versus
State of U.P. – Opposite Party
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 40989 of 2025
Decided on 5.1.2026
(A) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Sections 305(2) and 317(2) – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 482 – Bail application – Applicantwas not named in FIR – Subsequently, on the basis of information,applicant along with four other co-accused persons were arrestedand from their joint possession, 40 motor cycles were also shown tobe recovered, though, there was no private witness or videography ofrecovery, though, videography of recovery iscompulsory as per Section 105 BNSS – Co-accused has been granted bail – Considering entire facts and circumstances of case,submissions of Counsel for parties and taking intoaccount overcrowded jails and heavy pendency of criminal casesbefore trial courts and keeping in view nature of offence,evidence, complicity of accused as well as considering mandate of Judgment of Apex Court, applicant isentitled to be enlarged on bail – Bail granted. (Paras 3, 5and 6)
(B) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 105 – Uttar Pradesh Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Rules, 2024 – Rule 18 – Videography of search and seizure – Section 105 BNSS prescribes process of videography regarding search of a place or taking possession of any property or articles including preparation of list of all things seized to prevent plantation of false recovery by certain police officials and also create legal material for fair trial – In present case, police has not conducted any videography of recovery of motor cycles from applicant or preparation of list of seized motor cycles, though, same is mandatory as per Section 105 of BNSS and uploading videography on portal of E-Sakshya is also necessary but police has not complied the provision of BNSS – This fact shows not only negligence but arbitrariness on part of police which creates doubt over prosecution story regarding recovery of seized articles – Video recording of search or seizure process should be made part of case diary and same shall be sent to Magistrate within 48 hours – Director General of Police, U.P., directed to issue detailed SOP as required by Rules 18(5) of Uttar Pradesh Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Rules, 2024 for mandatorily conducting audio video recording of search, seizure or possession of property or other incriminating material including preparation of list of articles or property seized as well as signature of witnesses on E-Sakshya portal and uploading the same or through other audio, video electronic means including Mobile Phone of police officers on duty. (Paras 12, 13, 16 and 19)
Result: Bail Application allowed.
JUDGMENT
Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, J.—Heard Sri Asheesh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rakesh Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to release the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.185 of 2024, under Sections- 305(2), 317(2) BNS, Police Station-Mansoorpur, District-Muzaffar Nagar, during the pendency of the trial.
3. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that applicant was not named in the FIR. Subsequently, on the basis of information, the applicant along with four other co-accused persons were arrested and from their joint possession, 40 motor cycles were also shown to be recovered, though, there was no private witness or videography of the aforesaid recovery. Though, the videography of recovery is compulsory as per Section 105 BNSS. This creates doubt over the entire prosecution story. It is further submitted that co-accused Shoeb and Owais, have already been released on bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 30403 of 2025 and 22485 of 2025 vide orders dated 04.09.2025 and 22.07.2025, as applicant is also on similar footing. Therefore, the applicant is also entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity. It is further submitted that the applicant has explained the criminal history of six cases which were planted against the applicant subsequent to the recovery of the present case. It is further submitted that charge sheet has been filed in the present case, therefore, there is no requirement of custodial interrogation. The applicant is a law abiding citizen and he is languishing in jail since 16.04.2025. In case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.
4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.
5. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and taking into account overcrowded jails and heavy pendency of criminal cases before the trial courts and keeping in view the nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused 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.
6. Let the applicant - Shadab, 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:-
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.
ii. The applicant shall cooperate in the trial/investigation sincerely without seeking any adjournment.
iii. The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.
iv. The applicant shall attend in accordance with the conditions of the bond executed by him.
7. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
8. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
9. 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.
10. It is further directed that the trial court shall send the release order to the concerned jail through
Videography of search and seizure has to be made by Police party.
Mandatory compliance with procedural safeguards, such as videography during search and seizure, is essential for ensuring a fair trial and preventing unlawful recoveries.
The lack of timely trials and nondisclosure in police procedures can necessitate bail under the NDPS Act, highlighting the constitutional right to a speedy trial.
The court ruled that accused individuals must be provided access to prosecution materials to ensure a fair trial, prioritizing their rights under Section 230 BNSS over conflicting provisions.
Procedural lapses in NDPS Act do not invalidate trials unless they cause serious prejudice; the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 is paramount.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
