Allahabad High Court
AZAMversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA
Holding
The Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant, finding no sufficient direct evidence to justify denial.
Summary
The applicant, Azam, filed an anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the CrPC in a case under Sections 8, 21 and 29 of the NDPS Act, fearing arrest after his name appeared in the confessional statement of a co‑accused who was caught with 211 g of heroin. The applicant’s earlier bail application had been withdrawn for not disclosing his criminal history, which he later detailed, showing a prior case under the Excise Act and IPC but no conviction. The State opposed bail but did not dispute the reliance on the co‑accused’s confession as the sole evidence against the applicant. The Court noted the lack of direct evidence, the quantity of narcotics being below the commercial threshold, and the applicant’s clean record concerning NDPS offences, and therefore granted anticipatory bail with standard conditions. The order also stipulated that bail could be cancelled upon breach of conditions and clarified that the observations were limited to the bail application.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted when the only evidence is a co‑accused’s confessional statement.
- Whether the applicant’s prior criminal history and the quantity of narcotics seized justify denial of bail.
- Whether Section 482 CrPC empowers the Court to grant anticipatory bail in NDNDPS‑related cases.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482
- Excise Act — s. 60
- Indian Penal Code — s. 272, 273
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act — s. 21, 29, 8
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 482 CrPC
- NDPS Act
- confessional statement
- criminal history
- bail conditions
- heroin seizure
- commercial quantity
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
- 9149 of 2026
Azam
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mohd. Naushad, Noor Ahmed
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 71
HON'BLE RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA, J.
1. Heard, Learned counsel for the applicant, the Learned A.G.A. for the
State and perused the record.
2. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the
applicant in Case Crime No.459 of 2026, under Sections 8/21/29 N.D.P.S.
Act, Police Station- Kairana, District Shamli, with a prayer to enlarge him
on anticipatory bail as the applicant apprehends his arrest in the above-
mentioned case.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that this is the second
anticipatory bail application of the applicant. The first application was
dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh application, as the
applicant had not disclosed his criminal history as was required
under Chapter XVIII, Rule 18 sub-Rule (7) of the Rules of the Court.
4. Learned counsel has further stated that the criminal antecedents of the
applicant have been duly explained in paragraph 30 of the affidavit
accompanying the present bail application and contends that the applicant
is on bail in the solitary case shown in his criminal history. The
explanation given regarding the criminal antecedents of the applicant has
not been denied by the learned AGA. The applicant claims that he has
been falsely implicated. The co-accused Shaukeen has been arrested by
the police having in his possession 211 grams of smack. It is in his
confessional statement that the name of the applicant has surfaced.
NABAIL No. 9149 of 2026
2
Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that except the confessional
statement of the co-accused, there is no other direct evidence against the
applicant.
5. Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but does not dispute the fact
that the applicant's name has been surfaced in the confessional statement
of the co-accused.
6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the
parties.
7. The applicant has a criminal history of one previous case under Section
60 of the Excise Act and Sections 272 and 273 of the IPC. The applicant
is not stated to be a previous convict. The quantity of contraband
recovered from the co-accused is 211 grams of smack (heroin), whereas
the commercial quantity is 250 grams.
8. Taking note of the quantity of the contraband recovered, the lack of any
criminal history related to offences under the NDPS Act, and also the fact
that there is no other direct evidence against the applicant except the
confessional statement of the co-accused, I deem it appropriate to grant
anticipatory bail to the applicant.
9. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant
is allowed.
10. In the event of the arrest of the applicant Azam, he shall be released
forthwith in the aforesaid case crime on anticipatory bail on furnishing a
personal bond and surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the
Station House Officer of the police station/Court concerned with the
following conditions:-
i. the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police
officer as and when required;
ii. that the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly make any 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 to any police
officer;
NABAIL No. 9149 of 2026
3
iii. that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission
of the Court;
iv. that the applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution
witness;
11. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the Court concerned
shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.
12. It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively
for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and are not to be
considered to be an opinion on the merits of the case.
(Rajiv Lochan Shukla,J.)
September 8, 2026
S.A.
Digitally signed by :-
SALMAN AHMAD
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…