Allahabad High Court
RAFIversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The court granted bail to the applicant, finding a prima facie case for bail due to non‑compliance with mandatory NDPS provisions.
Summary
The applicant Rafi applied for bail in a narcotics case (Crime No. 536 of 2026) under Sections 8 and 21 of the NDPS Act, alleging that the 107 grams of seized substance was below commercial quantity and that mandatory provisions of Sections 50 and 52-A were not complied with. The applicant’s counsel argued there was no criminal history and that the charge was fabricated to showcase police efficiency. The State opposed the bail, but the court noted the lack of compliance with the mandatory provisions and, without addressing the merits, found a prima facie case for bail. Consequently, the court granted bail on condition of a personal bond, two sureties, and compliance with standard bail conditions. The order emphasized that any breach would lead to cancellation of bail and would not affect the trial on merits.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted in an NDPS case where the seized quantity is below commercial quantity
- Whether non‑compliance with mandatory provisions of Sections 50 and 52‑A of the NDPS Act warrants bail
- Whether the applicant’s lack of criminal history and alleged fabrication of charges affect bail eligibility
Legislation cited
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 21, 50, 52-A, 8
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- Section 8
- Section 21
- Section 50
- Section 52-A
- commercial quantity
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31627 of 2026
Rafi
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mohammad Waseem, Zulekha Begum
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 68
(Sr. No.7 out of 318)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Ms. Zulekha Bagum, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anit
Kumar Shukla, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed
on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.536 of 2026, under Section 8/21 of
The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station-
Fareedpur, District Bareilly, during the pendency of trial.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the contraband
recovered from the applicant, i.e. 107 grams of smack, is below the
commercial quantity. The said allegations are per se false. The applicant has
been implicated in the present case by the police to show good work. There
is no compliance of mandatory provisions of Sections 50 and 52-A of the
N.D.P.S. Act. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is
languishing in jail since 22.07.2026, and in case he is released on bail, he
will not misuse the liberty of bail.
5. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into
consideration that there is no compliance with the mandatory provisions of
Section 50 and 52-A of the N.D.P.S. Act, and without expressing any
BAIL No. 31627 of 2026
2
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.
7. Let the applicant- Rafi, 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.
8. Breach of any condition shall entail cancellation of bail. The observations
herein shall not affect the trial on merits.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
September 9, 2026
(Ravi Kant)
Digitally signed by :-
RAVI KANT
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…