Allahabad High Court
SMT. RIHANAversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The Court held that bail should be granted as the case was prima facie fit for release despite the alleged commercial quantity.
Summary
The Allahabad High Court considered the bail application of Smt. Rihana in NDPS case No. 592 of 2026, where the FIR alleged recovery of 5.108 kg of ganja from her joint possession. The applicant pleaded absolute innocence, contending that the police had falsely implicated her, that the seized quantity was below commercial level, and that there was no chemical analyst report nor compliance with mandatory provisions of Sections 52‑A and 57 of the NDPS Act. The State opposed bail, asserting that the contraband constituted a commercial quantity. After reviewing the record, the Court noted the lack of a forensic report and non‑compliance with the statutory provisions, and, despite the seriousness of the offence, held that prima facie the case warranted bail. Accordingly, the Court granted bail on personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions of non‑tampering with evidence, non‑intimidation of witnesses and attendance before the trial court. The order expressly stated that the bail decision would not prejudice the trial judge’s independent assessment of the evidence.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted in an NDPS case where the alleged contraband is claimed to be of commercial quantity
- Whether non‑compliance with mandatory provisions of Sections 52‑A and 57 of the NDPS Act and absence of a chemical analyst report justify granting bail
- Whether the applicant’s lack of prior criminal history and claim of innocence affect the bail decision
Legislation cited
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 20, 52-A, 57, 8
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- narcotic drugs
- commercial quantity
- mandatory provisions
- chemical analysis report
- presumption of innocence
- trial pending
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32972 of 2026
Smt. Rihana
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Gaurav Mishra, Shiv Sharan Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 68
(Sl. No. 35 out of 291)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Shiv Sharan Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri
V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed
on record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 592 of 2026, under Section 8/20
of The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police
Station- Qwarsi, District Aligarh, during the pendency of trial.
4. As per the allegations of the FIR, 5.108 kgs of ganja is stated to have been
recovered from the joint possession of applicant and co-accused person.
5. 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. The contraband recovered from the
possession of the applicant is below commercial quantity. There is no report
of the chemical analyst to corroborate the allegations that the alleged
contraband is ganja. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that there is
no compliance of mandatory provision of Sections 52-A and 57 of the
N.D.P.S. Act.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that there is no criminal
history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 16.7.2026.
In case, the applicant is released on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of
BAIL No. 32972 of 2026
2
bail.
7. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application on the
ground that the recovery of the contraband article is of commercial quantity.
8. 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.
9. Let the applicant- Smt. Rihana, who is involved in aforementioned case
be released on bail on her 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 she shall not tamper with
evidence or intimidate witnesses and shall appear before the trial court as
required.
10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail.
11. 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 16, 2026
Shalini
Digitally signed by :-
SHALINI JAISWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…