Allahabad High Court
YUSUFversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The Court held that bail is appropriate in the present NDPS case on a prima facie basis.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Yusuf, who was arrested in a narcotics case (Crime No. 233 of 2026) under Sections 8 and 20 of the NDPS Act for alleged possession of 1.1 kg of charas. The applicant’s counsel argued that he was falsely implicated, that the seized quantity was inflated to fall under the commercial category, and that mandatory provisions of Sections 50 and 52-A of the NDPS Act were not complied with. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the offence. The Court, after reviewing the record and noting the lack of a chemical analyst’s report and non‑compliance with mandatory provisions, found prima facie grounds to grant bail. Consequently, the Court ordered Yusuf’s release on bail subject to a personal bond, two sureties, and conditions not to tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted in a case under Sections 8 and 20 of the NDPS Act where mandatory provisions of Sections 50 and 52-A are alleged to be non‑compliant
- Whether the alleged quantity of narcotics justifies denial of bail
- Whether the applicant’s lack of criminal history and claim of false implication warrant bail
Legislation cited
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 20, 50, 52-A, 8
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- narcotics
- Section 8
- Section 20
- mandatory provisions
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28889 of 2026
Yusuf
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Amrita Kashyap
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 68
(Sl. No.83 out of 115)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for
the applicant is taken on record.
2. Heard Ms. Amrita Kashyap, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri
Abhishek Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material
placed on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 233 of 2026, under Section 8/20
of The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police
Station- Thakurdwara, District -Moradabad, during the pendency of trial.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is
absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case by
the police to show good work. 1.1 kg of charas is stated to have been
recovered from the conscious possession of the applicant. The said
contraband has been inflated to make it fall within commercial category.
Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that there is no compliance of
mandatory provision of Sections 50 and 52-A of the N.D.P.S. Act.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that there is no criminal
history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 24.7.2026.
In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of
bail.
6. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application.
BAIL No. 28889 of 2026
2
7. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusal of record and
considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment, there being
no compliance of mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act; there being no
report of the chemical analyst to corroborate the allegations against the
applicant, at this stage without commenting on the merits of the case, prima
facie, I find it a fit case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
8. Let the applicant- Yusuf, who is involved in aforementioned case 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 subject to
verification of sureties, with the condition that he shall not tamper with
evidence or intimidate witnesses and shall appear before the trial court as
required.
9. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail.
10. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant
shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent
opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
September 17, 2026
Shalini
Digitally signed by :-
SHALINI JAISWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…