USMANversusSTATE OF U.P.

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
         CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 21831 of 2026

Usman
                                                           .....Applicant(s)
                                  Versus

State of U.P.
                                                               .....Opposite
                                                                     Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)      : Ashutosh Ganguli, Masoom Alam,
                                Sushil Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 18
                     HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the
State-opposite party.

2. The present second bail application has been filed by the applicant
under Section 483 BNSS to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 16 of
2026, under Sections 8/20 of the NDPS Act, Police Station- Ratanpuri,
District- Muzaffar Nagar. The first bail application was rejected vide
order dated 08.04.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.
10033 of 2026.

3. Learned counsel for the accused-applicant, while pressing the bail
application, submits that, the accused-applicant has falsely been
implicated in this case and he has not committed any offence, as alleged
by the prosecution. He further submits that, 20.870 Kg Ganja is alleged to
have been recovered from the possession of the applicant in the first
information report of this case. In fact, no such recovery was effected
from the applicant. It is further submitted that, since such recovery is not
supported by independent witness, possibility of his false implication in
the crime, cannot be ruled out and it is also submitted that, while the
seizure was conducted, the concerned authorities did not follow the
procedure prescribed in the act and the said seizure is a sham exercise in
the absence of the procedure, as prescribed under the act and the law
settled on the subject, therefore, the arrest of the applicant/accused
becomes illegal. It is further submitted that, nothing has been recovered
                                                         BAIL No. 21831 of 2026
                                2


from the personal possession of the applicant. The only ground on which
the applicant is seeking enlargement on bail through this application is
that charge in this case has been framed. He further submitted that there
is no public eye witness of the alleged recovery. He submits that there is
non-compliance of Section 50 of N.D.P.S. Act and in support of his
contention, he has placed reliance upon the Judgment of the Apex Court
rendered in the case of Arif Khan @ Agha Khan vs. State of
Uttarakhand, (2018) 18 SCC 380, wherein it has been held that
mandatory procedure of Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act has to be
complied with in regard to search and recovery. He is languishing in jail
since 02.02.2026 and criminal history of three cases has been explained in
para 32 of the instant bail application and in two out of the three cases, the
applicant is bailed out and there is no apprehension that, after being
released on bail, he may flee from the course of law or may otherwise
misuse the liberty. Learned counsel for the applicant accused submitted
that, there is change in the circumstances, as much as the charge has been
framed and trial has commenced in the case and two prosecution
witnesses have been examined.

4. Per contra, learned AGA appearing on behalf of State submits that, the
quantity of Ganja, which has been recovered from the possession of the
accused-applicant is 20.870 Kg, above the commercial quantity. The
concerned officials have followed due procedure of law, while seizing the
Ganja and arresting the accused. He further submits that, innocence of the
applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, who is involved in
supplying contraband, therefore, the applicant does not deserve any
indulgence. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will again indulge
in similar activity. Moreover, he has not been granted bail in the present
case.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of
record, it is evident that recovered contraband substance, i.e. 20.870 kg.
Ganja is slightly above the commercial quantity; there is no independent
public eye witness of the alleged recovery; there is non compliance of
Section 50 of the NDPS Act; the criminal history of the applicant has
been explained in para 32 of the bail application; and the applicant is
languishing in jail since 02.02.2026.
                                                                                              BAIL No. 21831 of 2026
                                                                     3


                                    6. Considering the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of
                                    accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of
                                    supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of
                                    the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger
                                    mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without
                                    expressing any view on the merits of the case, this Court finds it to be a
                                    case of bail.

                                    7. Let the applicant Usman involved in the aforementioned crime be
                                    released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each
                                    in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the
                                    following conditions:-

                                    i. The applicant will continue to attend and co-operate in the trial pending
                                    before the court concerned on the date fixed after release.

                                    ii. He will not tamper with the witnesses.

                                    iii. He will not indulge in any illegal activities during the bail period.

                                    8. It is further directed that the identity, status and residence proof of the
                                    sureties be verified by the authorities concerned before they are accepted.

                                    9. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the trial court will be
                                    at liberty to cancel the bail.



                                                                                                (Harvir Singh,J.)
                                    September 25, 2026
                                    Prashant D.




Digitally signed by :-
PRASHANT DWIVEDI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad