Allahabad High Court
SOHAIL ALIAS SUHANversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- SAMEER JAIN
Holding
The Court granted bail to the applicant, holding that he should not be treated differently from other co‑accused who were released on bail.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Sohail (alias Suhan) under Sections 20 and 60 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act in connection with the recovery of more than 74 kg of ganja from a vehicle in which he and his wife were seated. The applicant contended that he was merely a passenger, not the owner of the vehicle, and that the allegations against him were false; he also highlighted that the vehicle owner and other co‑accused had already been released on bail and that he had no prior criminal record. The State opposed bail, arguing that a commercial quantity of narcotics was recovered from the vehicle and that the applicant was in possession. The Court, invoking the principle of uniformity and equality under Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution and citing Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, held that the applicant should not be treated differently from the other co‑accused who were granted bail. Consequently, the bail application was allowed subject to a personal bond, sureties and standard conditions. The order expressly limited its observations to the bail matter and did not prejudice the trial on the merits.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to bail under Sections 20 and 60 of the NDPS Act despite being a co‑accused in possession of a commercial quantity of ganja.
- Whether the principle of equality under Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution requires the applicant to be granted bail when other co‑accused have been released.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- commercial quantity
- equality
- Article 14
- Article 15
- uniformity
- drug offence
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7484 of 2026
Sohail Alias Suhan
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Neeraj Srivastava, Pankaj Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 66
HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.
1. Heard Sri Pankaj Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri
Manoj Kumar Singh, learned Brief holder for the State.
2. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No.571 of 2025, under Section 20/60 of
NDPS Act, Police Station Chakeri, District Kanpur Nagar, during
pendency of the trial.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, as per allegations, while
applicant along with his wife was sitting in a vehicle then from the
vehicle more than 74 kg. ganja was recovered and, thereafter, applicant
and his wife have also been made accused along with owner of the
vehicle but entire allegations levelled against the applicant are totally
false.
4. He next submits, applicant was not having any concern with the alleged
recovery of contraband.
5. He further submits, applicant after taking lift just sat in the vehicle
along with his wife and on the way during search, he was also
apprehended along with his wife.
6. He further submits, even bail application of owner of the vehicle Devi
Prasad has been allowed by the coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order
BAIL No. 7484 of 2026
2
dated 10.03.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 6718 of
2026 and the case of applicant is on better footing then him.
7. He next submits, even coordinate Bench of this Court has released the
wife of the applicant i.e. co-accused Smt. Malika Sultana Ahmad on bail
on 11.12.2025 and her bail order has been annexed at page 45 of the paper
book.
8. He next submits, even co-accused Guddi, who was also apprehended
along with applicant and his wife, has also been released on bail by the
coordinate Bench of this Court and her bail order has been annexed at
page 47 of the paper book.
9. He next submits, even applicant is not having any criminal history and
in the present matter, he is in jail since 31.08.2025 i.e. for the last almost
eight months.
10. He further argues, therefore, considering the above facts, the applicant
should be enlarged on bail.
11. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submits that
from the possession of the applicant and other co-accused, huge
commercial quantity of Ganja was recovered and though applicant was
not the owner of the vehicle but he was sitting in the vehiclealong with his
wife but he could not dispute the fact that even owner of the vehicle and
other two accused, who were also sitting along with applicant in the
vehicle including his wife, have been released on bail by the coordinate
Bench of this Court.
12. He also could not dispute the fact that applicant is not having any
other criminal history and in the present matter, applicant is in jail since
for last almost eight months.
13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of
the case.
14. However, as per allegation, from the possession of the applicant and
four others, huge commercial quantity of Ganja was recovered but
admittedly applicant was not owner of the vehicle and owner of the
BAIL No. 7484 of 2026
3
vehicle Devi Prasad, who was also apprehended along with applicant and
was also sitting in the vehicle has already been released on bail by the
coordinate Bench of this Court.
15. Further, even wife of the applicant and co-accused Guddi, who were
also apprehended along with applicant and were sitting in the vehicle
have been released on bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court and as
far as allegations are concerned, the case of the applicant is at par with his
wife and co-accused Guddi and appears to be on better footing than co-
accused Devi Prasad, who was owner of the vehicle.
16. Further, even applicant is not having any criminal history and in the
present matter applicant is in jail for the last more than eight months.
17. The Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. CBI &
another (2022) 10 SCC 51 in paragraph no. 98 has observed that:-
"Uniformity and certainty in the decisions of the court are the foundations of judicial
dispensation. Persons accused with same offence shall never be treated differently
either by the same court or by the same or different courts. Such an action though by
an exercise of discretion despite being a judicial one would be a grave affront to
Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India."
18. Therefore, considering the above observations made by the Apex
Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil (supra) and considering the
Article 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India, in my view, applicant
should also be released on bail.
19. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the
case, the instant bail application is allowed.
20 Let the applicant -Sohail @ Suhan be released on bail in the aforesaid
case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like
amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following
conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed,
unless his personal presence is exempted.
BAIL No. 7484 of 2026
4
(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat
or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to
dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer
or tamper with the evidence.
(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social
activity.
21. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will
be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of
the bail of the applicant.
22. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts
brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and
the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case
during trial.
(Sameer Jain,J.)
April 20, 2026
Mini
Digitally signed by :-
MINI KANAUJIYA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…