Allahabad High Court

YASEENversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 7 September 2026
Bench: KRISHAN PAHAL

Holding

The court allowed the bail application, granting bail to the applicant.

Summary

The applicant Yaseen was arrested along with co-accused for alleged possession of 12.75 quintals of poppy straw under the NDPS Act. He contended that the recovery memo and rent agreement linking him to the premises were forged, and that co-accused Amarpal Singh and Nazir @ Abdullah had already been granted bail, establishing parity. The State opposed bail but did not refute the forgery claim. The court examined the affidavits, noted the lack of a detailed response from the State, and considered the applicant’s clean record and the bail of co-accused. Finding a prima facie case for bail, the court granted bail subject to bond and sureties with standard conditions.

Issues considered

Whether the applicant is entitled to bail despite allegations under Sections 18, 15(c), 25 and 19 of the NDPS Act.
Whether the alleged forged rent agreement and recovery memo affect the bail application.
Whether parity with co-accused who have been granted bail warrants bail to the applicant.

Legislation cited

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act — s. 15(c), 18, 19, 25

Subjects

bail
NDPS Act
forged documents
parity principle
criminal procedure
sureties

Judgment

                 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

           CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16617 of 2026

Yaseen
                                                                  .....Applicant(s)
                                    Versus
State of U.P.
                                                            .....Opposite Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)                  :   Aman Kumar, Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)             :   G.A.

Court No. - 68
(Sr. No.59 out of 185)

                         HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

1. List has been revised.

2. Heard Sri Saghir Ahmad, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Aman
Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Arun Kumar Mishra, learned
A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.185 of 2025, under Sections 18,
15(c), 25 and 19 N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station Rahra, District Amroha,
during the pendency of trial.

4. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant has argued that it is true that, as
per the recovery memo, the applicant alongwith co-accused Nazir @
Abdullah was arrested from the spot and from their conscious possession,
the recovery of 12.75 quintals of poppy straw is stated to have been made.
The said allegations are per se false. The named accused person, Amarpal
Singh, who is stated to be the owner of the said premises, was enlarged on
bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 10.08.2026
passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.7871 of 2026 on the sole
ground that he had rented out the said premises to the applicant.

5. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant has further stated that the said
rent agreement was forged, which is evident from the signatures borne on
the recovery memo as well as the rent agreement by the naked eye. The said
averment regarding the forged rent agreement was made in the affidavit
accompanying the bail application, i.e., paragraph nos.32 to 36. Another co-
                                                            BAIL No. 16617 of 2026
                                  2


accused, Nazir @ Abdullah, was also arrested on the spot along with the
applicant, and he has been enlarged on bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court vide order dated 07.07.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail
Application No.17785 of 2026; as such, the applicant is entitled to bail on
the ground of parity also. The applicant has no criminal history and is in jail
since 17.08.2025. He undertakes to cooperate with the trial and not misuse
the liberty of bail.

6. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application but the
submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant could not be
disputed.

7. This Court had particularly asked the State to furnish the complete details
about the said agreement made in the affidavit filed in support of the bail
application. The counter affidavit filed by learned A.G.A. does not mention
any details about the said rent agreement; rather, it plainly states that there is
no need for any comments on the said averments, which tantamount to an
admission of the arguments made by learned Senior Counsel.

8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions
made by learned counsel for the parties, and the evidence on record, taking
into consideration the fact that the rent agreement filed by the co-accused,
Amarpal Singh, stands challenged and that he has also been granted bail, and
that the similarly placed co-accused person, Nazir @ Abdullah, has been
granted bail by the Co-ordinate Bench, and without expressing any opinion
on the merits of the case, prima facie, the Court is of the view that the
applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

9. Let the applicant- Yaseen, be released on bail in the aforementioned case
crime on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of
the court concerned, subject to verification of sureties, with the conditions
that he shall not tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses and shall
appear before the trial court as required.

10. Breach of any condition shall entail cancellation of bail. The
observations herein shall not affect the trial on merits.

                                                               (Krishan Pahal,J.)
September 8, 2026
(Ravi Kant)
Digitally signed by :-
RAVI KANT
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…