Allahabad High Court
FARDEENversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The court held that bail should be granted to the accused as the mandatory provisions of Section 52‑A were not complied with and the quantity involved was below commercial quantity.
Summary
The applicant, Fardeen, was arrested in a narcotics case (Crime No.163 of 2026) for allegedly possessing 75 grams of smack, which is below the commercial quantity under the NDPS Act. He sought bail during the pendency of trial, arguing lack of prior criminal history, non‑compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 52‑A of the NDPS Act, and that he would not misuse liberty. The State opposed the bail. The court examined the facts, noted the absence of Section 52‑A compliance, and, without delving into the merits, found that prima facie the applicant was entitled to bail. Consequently, the bail application was allowed subject to a personal bond, two sureties, and standard conditions. The order emphasized that breach of conditions would lead to cancellation of bail and would not affect the trial on merits.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted to the accused under Sections 8 and 21 of the NDPS Act when the quantity seized is below commercial quantity.
- Whether the mandatory provisions of Section 52‑A of the NDPS Act have been complied with, affecting bail eligibility.
Legislation cited
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 21, 52-A, 8
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- Section 52-A
- commercial quantity
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31751 of 2026
Fardeen
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ajai Kumar, Sumat Singh Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 68
(Sr. No.48 out of 318)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Birendra Kumar, Advocate holding brief of Sri Ajai Kumar,
learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ram Mohit Yadav, learned A.G.A. for
the State and perused the material placed on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.163 of 2026, under Section 8/21 of
The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station-
Shahi, District Bareilly, during the pendency of trial.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that 75 grams of smack is
said to have been recovered from the possession of the applicant, which is
below the commercial quantity. The applicant has been implicated in the
present case by the police to show good work. There is no compliance of
mandatory provisions of Section 52-A of the N.D.P.S. Act. There is no
criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since
27.05.2026. In case, the applicant 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 52-A of the N.D.P.S. Act, and without expressing any opinion on the
BAIL No. 31751 of 2026
2
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- Fardeen, 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…