Allahabad High Court
AJIJ AHMADversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- VIVEK VARMA
Holding
The applicant is entitled to bail as the statutory requirements for denial were not satisfied and no material risk of tampering or intimidation was shown.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Ajij Ahmad in a case under Sections 8 and 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, where 300 grams of alleged opium was recovered. The applicant argued that the recovery was false, there was no independent witness, the seized quantity was below the commercial threshold, and mandatory provisions of Sections 42, 50, 51 and 52-A of the NDPS Act were not complied with; he also sought parity with co‑accused Narendra, who had been granted bail. The State opposed bail but could not refute these submissions. The Court found prima facie that the lack of an independent witness, non‑compliance with statutory requirements, and the low quantity justified bail, and noted no risk of evidence tampering or witness intimidation. Consequently, the Court ordered the applicant’s release on bail subject to personal bond, sureties and standard conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to bail despite the alleged recovery of opium.
- Whether the absence of an independent witness and non‑compliance with mandatory NDPS provisions preclude bail.
- Whether the low quantity of the seized substance (below commercial quantity) affects bail eligibility.
- Whether parity with a co‑accused who was granted bail warrants granting bail to the applicant.
- Whether there is a reasonable apprehension of tampering with evidence or intimidation of witnesses.
Legislation cited
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 18, 42, 50, 51, 52, 52.1, 8
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- opium
- commercial quantity
- mandatory provisions
- false recovery
- parity
- evidence tampering
- witness intimidation
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12166 of 2026
Ajij Ahmad
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ali Hasan, Istiyaq Ali
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 64
HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri N.K. Sharma, learned A.G.A.
for the State and perused the record.
2. The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 87 of 2026, under Section 8/18 N.D.P.S.
Act 1985, Police Station- Bhuta District- Bareilly during pendency of the
trial.
3. Counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely
implicated in the instant case. False recovery of 300 gm. 'Opium' has been
shown from the possession of the applicant. There is no independent witness
to the alleged recovery. The recovered substance is below the commercial
quantity. The mandatory provisions of Section 42, 50, 51 and 52-A of
N.D.P.S. Act have not been complied with. There is no F.S.L. report to
establish that the substance recovered is 'Opium'. It is next contended that
the co-accused Narendra has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated
15.4.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.11606 of 2026
(Narendra Vs. State of U.P.). The applicant claims parity. The criminal
history of the applicant has been explained in para 16 and 17 of the bail
application. The applicant is in jail since 1.3.2026 and in case, he is enlarged
on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.
4. Learned AGA for the State has opposed the prayer for bail but could not
satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the
record, this Court prima facie finds that there is no independent witness to
BAIL No. 12166 of 2026
2
the alleged recovery. The recovered substance is below the commercial
quantity. The mandatory provisions of N.D.P.S. Act have not been complied.
There is no F.S.L. report to establish that the substance recovered is 'Opium'.
The co-accused Narendra has been granted bail by this Court. Moreover, the
applicant has remained confined for almost three months and after
submission of the charge-sheet there is no hope of early conclusion of trial,
and no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State
that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the evidence
or delay the trial or intimidate the witness, therefore, without commenting 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, Ajij Ahmad involved in the aforesaid case be released
on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like
amount to the satisfaction of court concerned on the following conditions
that:
i. the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;
ii. the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witness;
iii. the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court.
7. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be
at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.
April 20, 2026
S.S.
(Vivek Varma,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
SIDDHARTH SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…