Noor Mohammad Naau vs State of U.P.

The present bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed on behalf of applicant, Noor Mohammad Naau with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 68 of 2025, under Section 8/21/23 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station- Sonauli, District- Maharajganj.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that applicant is being prosecuted for an offence under Section 8/21/23 of NDPS Act and arrested on the ground that 190 ampule of Buprenorphine injunction, 200 ampule of Diazepan injunction and 200 ampule of Promethazine Hydrochloride injunction were recovered from the possession of applicant and co-accused. In fact no such recovery was effected from the applicant. It is further submitted that since such recovery is not supported by independent witness, possibility of his 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.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that even otherwise the alleged contraband recovered from the possession of the applicant falls under the category of small quantity and the applicant is entitled to be released on bail considering his period of incarceration. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Kerala High Court in the case of Salam Vs.

¶12

BAIL No. 35489 of 2025

¶13

2

¶14

Union of India reported in (2008) 1 KLT 498 whereby one gm. of buprenorphine is 3333.33 milimitres, as such the said contraband falls within the category of small quantity and does not fall within the category of commercial quantity.

¶15

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the recovery as regards 200 ampule is concerned, the same does not fall within the purview of psychotropic or narcotic substance.

¶16

It is also argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present crime with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and victimize him. The applicant, who is in jail since 4.7.2025 having no criminal history to his credit, deserves to be released on bail. In case the applicant is released on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶17

Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage who is involved in supplying contraband, therefore, the applicant does not deserve any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activity.

¶18

Considering the facts of the case, 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-applicant, 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.

¶19

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶20

Let the applicant Noor Mohammad Naau involved in abovesaid case crime 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 with the following conditions that :-

¶21

The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by

¶22

BAIL No. 35489 of 2025

¶23

3

¶24

intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶25

The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶26

The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶27

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.

¶28

(Ashutosh Srivastava,J.)

¶29

November 12, 2025 Ravi Prakash

¶30

Digitally signed by :- RAVI PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Noor Mohammad Naau v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Noor Mohammad Naau 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

Similar cases

Mohd. Hasnain vs State of U.P.

Mahipal Alias Chauhanni vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Dhiraj Kumar vs State of U.P.

Deepu Sonkar vs State of U.P.

Deepak vs State of U.P.

Biswahari Prasad Nag vs State of U.P.