Allahabad High Court
MOHAMMAD FAHADversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
Holding
The Court held that the applicant is entitled to bail and allowed the bail application.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Mohammad Fahad, who was arrested at Cheeoki Railway Station for allegedly possessing 477 bottles of codeine‑based cough syrup. The applicant argued that he was falsely implicated, that the forensic lab report did not confirm the presence of codeine, that the suitcases did not belong to him, and that the recovery was not recorded on the mandatory e‑Sakshya app as required under Section 105 of the BNSS. The State opposed bail but did not dispute the factual matrix. Weighing the nature of the offence, the quantity involved, the applicant’s clean record, the procedural lapses, and the Supreme Court’s recent pronouncements on bail, the Court decided to grant bail. The order directed the applicant to furnish a personal bond with two sureties and imposed standard conditions for bail compliance.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused under Sections 8, 21 and 22 of the NDPS Act and related provisions of the Aushadhi Prasadhan Samagri Adhiniyam.
- Whether the alleged procedural irregularities in recording the seizure (non‑use of e‑Sakshya) affect the bail decision.
- Whether the accused’s clean antecedents and the circumstances of the case warrant bail despite the seriousness of the alleged offence.
Legislation cited
- Aushadhi Prasadhan Samagri Adhiniyam — s. 18A, 18C, 27B(2), 28
- BNSS Act — s. 105
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act — s. 21, 22, 8
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- codeine cough syrup
- procedural irregularities
- e‑Sakshya
- overcrowded jails
- clean antecedent
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30429 of 2026
Mohammad Fahad
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Chandra Jeet Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 66
HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL, J.
1. Heard Sri Chandra Jeet Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri P.K.
Malviya, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to release the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 267 of 2026, under Section 8/21/22 NDPS
Act and Section 18A, 18C, 27B(2), 28 Aushadhi Prasadhan Samagri
Adhiniyam, Police Station G.R.P. District- Prayagraj, during the pendency of
the trial.
3. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that, as per the
prosecution story, while the applicant was sitting at platform no. 1 of Cheeoki
Railway Station, police as well as the Drug Inspector found two suitcases
adjacent to the applicant and, on checking, 477 bottles of codeine-based
cough syrup Onerex were found therein and samples of the same were also
sent to the lab. It is further submitted that the applicant has been falsely
implicated in the present case, though there is no FSL report showing that the
recovered cough syrup was having codeine content and even the label of the
bottles does not mention in the FIR regarding the presence of contents of
codeine phosphate. It is further submitted that there is no public witness of the
incident and even the two suitcases did not belong to the applicant and he has
been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that even if
the allegation of the FIR is admitted, even then it is clear that the applicant
was transporting the two suitcases at the instance of one person without
knowing the actual contents therein, as the applicant was aware that there
was medicine inside the suitcases. It is further submitted that even the
procedure under Section 105 of BNSS has not been properly followed, as the
videography of the aforesaid recovery was made through a mobile phone
instead of the e-Sakshya App, which is mandatory as per the rules.
4. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history and is a poor
BAIL No. 30429 of 2026
2
person. It is further submitted that the charge-sheet has been filed in the
present case; therefore, there is no requirement of custodial interrogation. The
applicant is a law-abiding citizen and he is languishing in jail since 25.06.2026.
In case he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and would
cooperate in the trial proceedings.
5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail but
could not dispute the aforesaid facts.
6. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of
learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of offence,
evidence, quantity of cough syrup allegedly recovered, complicity as well as
clean antecedent of the accused and taking into account overcrowded jails
and heavy pendency of criminal cases before the trial courts as well as
considering the mandate of the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of
Kapil Wadhawan vs Central Bureau of Investigation reported in 2025 SCC
OnLine SC 3038 as well as guideline of this Court in the case of Maya Tiwari
Vs. State of U.P., 2024 SCC Online All 6765 regarding grant of bail and
without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion
that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. Accordingly, the present
application is allowed.
7. Let the applicant- Mohammad Fahad, 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 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 cooperate in the trial/investigation sincerely without
seeking any adjournment.
iii. The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any
crime after being released on bail.
iv. The applicant shall attend in accordance with the conditions of the bond
executed by him.
8. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail.
9. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified
BAIL No. 30429 of 2026
3
by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
10. Verification of mobile number and Aadhaar card of the applicant as well as
sureties should be verified by the court concerned.
11. It is made clear that the applicant shall be released on the basis of
computer generated copy of this order, downloaded from the official website of
High Court Allahabad and verified by the concerned counsel with the
undertaking that the certified copy will be filed within 15 days.
12. It is further directed that the trial court shall send the release order to the
concerned jail through Bail Order Management System (BOMS) to ensure
early release of the applicant.
13. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the applicant through Jail
Superintendent, Prayagraj via e-mail or on e-prison portal and Trial Court via
e-mode within 24 hours in compliance of the order of the Apex Court in the
case of Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail, In Re: Suo Motu Writ Petition
(Crl.) No.4 of 2021 decided on 31.01.2023 reported in (2024) 10 SCC 685 as
well as Pila Pahan@Peela Pahan and others Vs. State of Jharkhand and
another, in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 169 of 2025, decided on
29.05.2026.
14. Application, if any, stands disposed of.
(Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.)
September 8, 2026
SA
Digitally signed by :-
SALMAN ALI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…