Allahabad High Court
MOBEENversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
Holding
The bail application is allowed and the applicant is released on bail subject to conditions.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, on behalf of Mobeen, who is accused in an NDPS case (Sections 8/29) for possession of 20 grams of cannabis, a quantity below commercial threshold. The applicant claimed innocence, alleging that his name appeared only in the confessional statement of a co‑accused, which he argued is inadmissible per Supreme Court precedent. The State opposed bail, highlighting the applicant’s prior criminal history of ten cases. The Court examined the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act and relevant case law, notably Toofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu and Union of India v. Shiv Shanker Kesari, and concluded that bail was appropriate. Accordingly, the Court granted bail subject to a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties and several conditions, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the underlying offence.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted under Section 483 B.N.S.S. for an NDPS offence when the primary incriminating evidence is a confessional statement of a co‑accused.
- Whether the applicant’s prior criminal history and the low quantity of narcotics affect the grant of bail.
- Whether the conditions imposed under Section 37 NDPS and relevant case law satisfy the requirements for bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 351, 483
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act — s. 29, 37, 8
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- confessional statement
- Section 37 NDPS
- Section 483 B.N.S.S.
- criminal history
- court conditions
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14442 of 2026
Mobeen
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rizwan Ullah Siddiqui
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 69
HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.
1. Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant is taken on record.
2. Heard Shri Rizwan Ullah Siddiqui, learned counsel for the applicant, and
Shri J.P. Singh, learned AGA for the State-respondents and perused the
record.
3. 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. 79 of 2026, under Section 8/29 of
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, registered at Police
Station Chilkana, District Saharanpur, during pendency of the trial.
4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the
applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case due to
ulterior motive. It is further submitted that the first information report has
been lodged against unknown and the name of the applicant has surfaced in
the confessional statement of arrested co-accused Aas Mohammad Alias Asu
and from whose possession 20 Gram of smack is said to have been
recovered, which is much below the commercial quantity. It is further
submitted that the confessional statement of the co-accused is not admissible
in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Toofan
Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu. The applicant is languishing in jail since
24.03.2026 and the applicant is having criminal history of 10 cases, which
has been explained in the memo of application as well as in the
supplementary affidavit filed today, undertakes that he will not misuse the
liberty, if granted. It has also been pointed out that in the wake of heavy
BAIL No. 14442 of 2026
2
pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion
of trial.
5. Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant.
6. First information report has been lodged against unknown and the name of
the applicant has surfaced in the confessional statement of arrested co-
accused Aas Mohammad Alias Asu and from whose possession 20 Gram of
smack is said to have been recovered, which is much below the commercial
quantity. It is further submitted that the confessional statement of the co-
accused is not admissible in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Toofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu. The applicant is
languishing in jail since 24.03.2026 and the applicant is having criminal
history of 10 cases, which has been explained in the memo of application as
well as in the supplementary affidavit filed today.
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
N.D.P.S. Act and the law laid down in the case of Toofan Singh vs. State of
Tamil Nadu (2021) 4 SCC 1 and Union of India vs Shiv Shanker Kesari
(2007) 7 SCC 798 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- Mobeen involved in the aforesaid case crime shall 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 :-
(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.
BAIL No. 14442 of 2026
3
(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.
May 7, 2026
RKM
(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
RAJESH KUMAR MAURYA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…