Allahabad High Court

MOHD ASHIFversusCENTRAL BUREAU OF NARCOTICS

Decided: 6 September 2026
Bench: SANTOSH RAI

Holding

The Court held that bail must be denied to the accused.

Summary

The Allahabad High Court considered a second bail application filed by Mohd Ashif, who is charged under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act for alleged involvement in a large‑scale tramadol and codeine seizure. The prosecution contended that Ashif was the main accused operating a factory that produced the contraband, while two co‑accused had already been granted bail. Ashif argued that he was falsely implicated, no narcotic article was recovered from his possession, and he has only one prior criminal record. The Court observed the massive quantity of drugs recovered, Ashif’s alleged central role, and the reasonable apprehension of witness intimidation and trial interference, finding no new ground to justify bail. Accordingly, the Court rejected the second bail application.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted to the accused in view of the quantity of narcotics recovered and his alleged role
Whether the risk of interference with the trial and witness intimidation warrants denial of bail

Legislation cited

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 21, 22, 25, 27, 29, 67, 8

Subjects

bail
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act
NDPS
narcotics seizure
quantity of contraband
witness intimidation
criminal procedure

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12075 of 2026

Mohd Ashif
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
Central Bureau Of Narcotics
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anoop Kumar Dubey, Chandan Sharma
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Krishna Agarawal

Court No. - 93
HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J.

1. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the appellant is taken
on record.

2. Heard Sri Piyush Sinha, learned counsel holding brief of Sri Chandan
Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Krishna Agarawal, learned
counsel for Central Bureau of Norcotics and perused the record.

3. This is the second bail application moved by the applicant. First bail
application being Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.19728 of 2025 was
rejected by this Court on 03.02.2026.

4. This second bail application has been moved on behalf of accused-
applicant Mohd. Ashif seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.12 of
2024, under Sections 8/21/22/25/27-A/29 Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic
Substance Act, P.S. C.B.N., District New Delhi.

5. Tersely, the fact of prosecution case is that on 16.09.2024, on the basis of
the specific information, a preventive team of officers of P & I Cell, CBN
New Delhi raided at a room build at the land of Mustafa Ali Alias Sonu at
Poultry Farms near Main Road connecting Village Manjhol and Choundhari,
Saharanpur (Uttar Pradesh) and recovered and seized various NDPS
medicines. Two persons namely, Ahsan Ali son of Naseem Ahmed, resident
of Village Baleli, PO Samalekhi Gurjer, District- Saharanpur (Uttar Pradesh)
and Mohammed Salman son of Mohammad Inam, resident of Village
Madhopur Hazratpur, District Haridwar (Uttarakhand) were found inside
that house filling tramadol capsules in empty capsule blisters and two
BAIL No. 12075 of 2026
2

person, namely, Mohammad Asif (accused-applicant) son of Mohammad
Aslam resident of VPO Gagalhedi, District- Saharanpur were found outside
helping them. Loose tramadol capsules, blister filled with suspected
tramadol capsules were recovered at the spot. In addition to that a capsule
blister filling machine, air filling machine and generator were used in filling
of those capsules blisters. The same were also seized. Two cars Maruti
Fronx having registration no UK07FR5959 and Maruti Suzuki having
registration no. UP12AH3767 used for transporting seized suspected
tramadol capsules by the accused were also seized on the spot. The
summons u/s 67 of NDPS Act were issued to all four persons and their
voluntarily statement u/s 67 were recorded. In their voluntary statements
they inter alia accepted the recovery and other incriminating facts. Since the
above named accused persons appeared to have committed offences
punishable under Sections 8/21, 22, 25 27A and 29 of NDPS Act, 1985, they
were arrested on 17.09.2024 in accordance with law.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been
falsely implicated in this case due to ulterior motive. No any incriminating
article was recovered from the possession of the applicant. He further
submitted that PW-1 and PW-2 have already been examined, while non-
bailable warrant has been issued against PW-3. There are 27 prosecution
witnesses in all and, therefore, conclusion of the prosecution evidence is
likely to take considerable time. It was further submitted that two co-accused
persons namely Mohd. Salman and Mustafa Ali have already been enlarged
on bail by a Co-ordinate Benches of this Court vide orders dated 08.05.2026
and 10.02.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.11547 of
2026 and 15347 of 2025 and that the applicant has only one criminal
history, which has been duly explained in para-66 of the bail application.
The applicant has been languishing in jail for about the last two years i.e.
since 18.09.2024.

7. Learned counsel for the opposite party vehemently opposed the prayer for
bail and submitted that the applicant is the main accused and his role is
distinguishable from that of the co-accused who have been granted bail. On
the pointing out/information furnished by the applicant, huge quantities of
contraband were recovered from three other places. The applicant was
allegedly running the disputed factory, from where a huge quantity of
narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances was recovered. In
BAIL No. 12075 of 2026
3

all, 386.9218185 kg Tramadol was recovered, whereas the commercial
quantity is only 250 grams. Further, 90 kg of codeine was recovered against
the commercial quantity of 1 kg, and some quantity of Alprazolam i.e.
100gm was also recovered from the possession of the applicant.

8. Without expressing any opinion on merits of the case and considering the
huge quantity of contraband recovered from the possession of the applicant,
his role and involvement, and the fact that his case is distinguishable from
that of the co-accused Mohd. Salman and Mustafa Ali, who have been
granted bail, mere incarceration of about two years and examination of PW-
1 and PW-2, I find no new or sufficient ground to grant bail to the applicant
in the second bail application. There is also a reasonable apprehension that,
if the applicant is released on bail, he may interfere with the trial and
intimidate or pressurize the prosecution witnesses.

9. Accordingly, the second bail application of the applicant is rejected.

September 7, 2026
Asha
(Santosh Rai,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
ASHA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…