Haroon Vs State of U.P.

Heard Ms. Katyaini Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶11

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 259 of 2025, under Section 8/21 of The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station- Kotwali Chunar, District- Mirzapur, during the pendency of trial.

¶12

As per the allegations of the FIR, the applicant is said to have been apprehended by the police on 31.5.2025 and 105 gram of Heroin is said to have been recovered from his possession.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and to victimize him. The allegations are per se false and the recovered contraband is below the commercial quantity. There is no compliance of mandatory provision of Section 105 B.N.S.S. and Section 52A of the N.D.P.S. Act.

¶14

It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no chemical analyst's report to corroborate that the recovered contraband is Heroin. The criminal history of two cases assigned to the applicant has been explained. The applicant is languishing in jail since 31.5.2025. The applicant

¶15

BAIL No. 29140 of 2025

¶16

2

¶17

is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶18

Learned A.G.A. State Law Officer vehemently opposed the bail application.

¶19

The Supreme Court in Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2020 (11) SCC 648 has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail, if otherwise his case of bail is made out.

¶20

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusal of record and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment as well as totality of facts and circumstances, without commenting on the merits of the case, prima facie, I find it a fit case for bail.

¶21

Let the applicant- Haroon , who is involved in aforementioned 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 following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶22

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence during trial.

¶23

(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

¶24

(iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed.

¶25

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶26

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.

¶27

(Krishan Pahal,J.)

¶28

September 16, 2025 Vikas Verma

¶29

Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Haroon v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Haroon v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases