Allahabad High Court
HASNAIN KHANversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
Holding
The Court held that the applicant is entitled to bail pending trial.
Summary
Hasnain Khan was arrested on 13 January 2026 and charged under Sections 8, 21 and 29 of the NDPS Act for alleged possession of 500 grams of a narcotic. He filed a bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, claiming innocence and arguing that the mandatory procedures under Section 52‑A of the NDPS Act for sample collection were not complied with, and that the forensic report conflicted with the FIR description. The State opposed bail, contending that the seized substance was heroin. The Court examined the procedural lapses, the inconsistency in the forensic report, and applied Section 37 of the NDPS Act along with precedents from Nadeem Ahmed v. State of West Bengal (2025) and Union of India v. Shiv Shanker Kesari (2007). Finding the case suitable for bail, the Court granted bail with a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and several conditions, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the underlying criminal charge.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted in a pending NDPS trial where procedural lapses under Section 52‑A are alleged.
- Whether the inconsistency between the FIR description of the seized material and the forensic laboratory report affects the bail decision.
- Application of Section 37 of the NDPS Act and relevant Supreme Court precedents to the bail application.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 483
- B.N.S.S. — s. 351
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act — s. 21, 29, 37, 52-A, 8
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- Section 52-A
- forensic inconsistency
- procedural lapse
- Section 37
- high court
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14066 of 2026
Hasnain Khan
.....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. - 69
HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.
1. Heard Sri Istiyaq Ali, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri
B.P. Maurya, learned AGA for the State-respondents and perused
the record.
2. 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. 28
of 2026, under Section 8/21/29 NDPS Act, registered at Police
Station Fareedpur, District Bareilly, during pendency of the trial.
3. 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 13.1.2026. It is
further submitted that co-accused Afzal has already been granted
bail by this Court vide order dated 16.4.2026 passed in Criminal
Misc. Bail Application No. 11015 of 2026. It is further submitted
that as per FIR, 500gram of smack (crude powder) is said to have
been recovered from the possession of the applicant, however, it is
submitted that mandatory provisions of Section 52-A of NDPS Act
have not been complied with as the samples have not been taken
in accordance with the Rules 9, 10 and 11 of the Rules published
by the Union of India in the official gazette. It is also submitted that
the applicant undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty, if
granted. It has also been pointed out that in the wake of heavy
BAIL No. 14066 of 2026
2
pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early
conclusion of trial.
4. 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
recovered contraband has been found to be heroine.
5. In reply, learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is
glaring inconsistency in the alleged recovered crude powder and
FSL report.
6. Co-accused Afzal has already been granted bail by this Court. A
s per FIR, 500gram of smack (crude powder) is said to have been
recovered from the possession of the applicant, however, it is
submitted that mandatory provisions of Section 52-A of NDPS Act
have not been complied with as the samples have not been taken
in accordance with the Rules 9, 10 and 11 of the Rules published
by the Union of India in the official gazette. In the FSL report,
alleged recovery has been found to be heroine. It is submitted that
there is glaring inconsistency in the alleged recovered crude
powder and in the FSL report.
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 Nadeem Ahmed vs. State of West
Bengal, 2025 LawSuit (SC) 1134 (2025 INSC 993) 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.
8. Let the applicant- Hasnain Khan 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 :-
BAIL No. 14066 of 2026
3
(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 not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution
witnesses.
(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.
(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.
(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each
date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.
9. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a
ground for cancellation of bail.
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.
(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)
May 5, 2026
Abhishek
Digitally signed by :-
ABHISHEK AGRAHARI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…