Allahabad High Court
IRSHADversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- VIVEK VARMA
Holding
The Court held that the applicant is entitled to bail.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Irshad in a case under Sections 8, 20 and 29 of the NDPS Act for alleged possession of 5.008 kg of ganja. The applicant argued that the recovery was false, there was no independent witness, the quantity was below commercial level and mandatory provisions of Sections 42, 50 and 52‑A were not complied with; he also pointed to the bail granted to a co‑accused, Jeenat. The State opposed bail but could not rebut these submissions. The Court found no corroborative evidence linking the applicant to the offence, noted the low quantity, the lack of an independent witness and the parity with the co‑accused, and observed that the applicant had no criminal history and had been in custody for over a month. Consequently, the Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail, subject to a personal bond, two sureties and conditions to appear, not tamper with evidence, and not pressurise witnesses.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to bail under the NDPS Act despite alleged possession of ganja.
- Whether the mandatory provisions of Sections 42, 50 and 52‑A of the NDPS Act have been complied with.
- Whether the lack of an independent witness and the low quantity of contraband affect bail eligibility.
- Whether the bail granted to the co‑accused creates a parity requirement for the applicant.
Legislation cited
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985 — s. 20, 29, 42, 50, 52-A, 8
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- false recovery
- contraband quantity
- evidence
- co‑accused parity
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34625 of 2026
Irshad
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Saksham Srivastava, Yasharth Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 64
HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Nagendra Mishra, learned
Brief Holder for the State-opposite party. Perused the material available on
record.
2. The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 361 of 2026, under Sections 8, 20, 29 of
N.D.P.S. Act, 1985, Police Station - Roravar, District - Aligarh, during the
pendency of trial.
3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely
implicated in the instant case. False recovery of 5.008 Kg. Ganja has been
shown from the possession of the applicant. There is no independent witness
to the alleged recovery. The recovered contraband is below commercial
quantity. The mandatory provisions contained under Sections 42, 50 and 52-
A of the N.D.P.S. Act have not been complied with. There is no FSL report
to establish that the substance recovered is prohibited contraband. It is next
contended that the co-accused Jeenat has been granted bail by this Court
vide order dated 28.9.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application
No.34490 of 2026. Applicant claims parity. The applicant is in jail since
06.08.2026 having no criminal history and in case he is enlarged on bail, he
will not misuse the said liberty.
4. Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily
dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.
5. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this
BAIL No. 34625 of 2026
2
Court prima facie finds that there is no independent witness to the alleged
recovery. The recovered contraband is below commercial quantity. At this
stage, there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the
offence. Further, the co-accused Jeenat has been granted bail by this Court.
Moreover, the applicant has no criminal history and has remained confined
for more than one and half month and there is no hope of early conclusion of
trial, more so when no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore
by the State that the applicants, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with
the evidence or delay the trial or intimidate the witness, without commenting
on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicants are entitled
to be enlarged on bail.
6. Let the applicant Irshad, involved in the aforesaid case 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 the conditions
that he:
(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;
(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; and,
(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.
7. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be
at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.
September 29, 2026
Manish Kr
(Vivek Varma,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
MANISH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…