Allahabad High Court
MUSTAFA AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA
Holding
The court granted bail to the applicants subject to personal bond, sureties, and specified conditions.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed under Section 483 of the CrPC on behalf of Mustafa and Rihan, who were charged under Sections 8 and 21 of the NDPS Act for alleged possession of 185 grams of contraband, a quantity below the commercial threshold. The applicants argued that no contraband was actually recovered, the prosecution lacked an independent chemical analysis report as required by Section 50 of the NDPS Act, and that they were falsely implicated, having been in custody since 29‑12‑2025. The State opposed bail, contending that the pre‑trial stage does not permit a finding of innocence and that releasing the accused could lead to further drug‑related activity. The Court, invoking Article 21 of the Constitution and weighing the nature of the accusation, evidence, and the applicants' character, concluded that bail was appropriate without expressing an opinion on guilt. Accordingly, the Court ordered the release of the applicants on personal bond and two sureties each, subject to conditions prohibiting witness tampering, further criminal activity, and unnecessary adjournments.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to accused under the NDPS Act for alleged possession of a quantity below commercial threshold.
- Whether the prosecution’s failure to produce a chemical analysis report under Section 50 of the NDPS Act warrants denial of bail.
- Whether the possibility of the accused committing further offences justifies refusal of bail at the pre‑trial stage.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 483
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 21, 50, 8
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- Section 50 NDPS
- pre‑trial detention
- Article 21
- personal bond
- sureties
- contraband
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6095 of 2026
Mustafa And Another
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Atul Kumar Kushwaha
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 68
HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.
Heard Sri Atul Kumar Kushwaha, learned counsel for the applicants and
Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the
record of the case.
The present bail application under Section 483 BNSS has been filed on
behalf of applicants, Mustafa and Rihan, with a prayer to release them on
bail in Case Crime No. 134 of 2025, under Section 8/21 of N.D.P.S. Act,
Police Station Garhi Pukhta, District-Shamli.
Learned counsel for the applicants has contended that total 185 Gram Smack
is alleged to have been recovered from the possession of the applicants. The
recovered contraband is below commercial quantity. In fact no such
recovery was effected from the applicants. It is further submitted that since
such recovery is not supported by independent witness, possibility of their
false implication in the crime cannot be ruled out. It is next contended that in
the present case the prosecution has failed to follow strictly the provisions of
Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act. There is no report of chemical analyst. It is
also argued that the applicants are absolutely innocent and has been falsely
implicated in the present crime with a view to cause unnecessary harassment
and victimize them. The applicant are languishing is in jail since 29.12.2025.
Criminal history of one case against the applicant no. 1 has been properly
explained and the applicant no. 2 has no criminal antecedents and they
deserve to be released on bail. In case the applicants are released on bail they
will not misuse the liberty of bail.
Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicants by
contending that the innocence of the applicants cannot be adjudged at pre
trial stage who are involved in supplying contraband, therefore, the
applicants does not deserve any indulgence. In case the applicants are
released on bail they will again indulge in similar activity.
BAIL No. 6095 of 2026
2
Considering the facts of the case and keeping in mind larger mandate of
Article 21 of the constitution of India, the nature of accusations, the nature
of evidence in support thereof, the severity of punishment which conviction
will entail, the character of the accused-applicants, circumstances which are
peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the
accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being
tampered with, the larger interest of the public/ State and other
circumstances, but without expressing any opinion on the merits, I am of the
view that it is a fit case for grant of bail.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits, let the applicants Mustafa
and Rihan, involved in abovesaid case crime be released on bail on their
furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that :-
1. The applicants shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by
intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.
2. The applicants shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any
adjournment.
3. The applicants shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of
any crime after being released on bail.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and
sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
(Ashutosh Srivastava,J.)
March 19, 2026
Deepak/
Digitally signed by :-
DEEPAK KUMAR KUSHWAHA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…