Mahmood Alam Vs U.O.I. Thru. Zonal Director Narcotics Control Bureau Lko. Zonal Unit Lko.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:46604

Court No. - 12

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4817 of 2025

Applicant :- Mahmood Alam Opposite Party :- U.O.I. Thru. Zonal Director Narcotics Control Bureau Lko. Zonal Unit Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Neeraj Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Akhilesh Kumar Awasthi

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

1. Heard Shri Neeraj Singh learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Akhilesh Kumar Awasthi, learned counsel for the NCB.

¶7

2. The present bail application has been moved on behalf of the applicant, who is accused of offences punishable under Sections 8/20/27-A/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as “NDPS Act”) Police Station Narcotics Control Bureau, District Lucknow.

¶8

3. In the prosecution case it is alleged that on 16.02.2025, on the basis of secret information, when Train No. 19054 Surat Express, as per the information, arrived at Platform No. 5 of Charbagh Railway Station, Lucknow, a joint team of N.C.B. and S.T.F., Lucknow, apprehended a person sitting on Seat No. 30 in Coach No. B6. On being asked, he disclosed his name as Rajesh Kumar Sah. Upon inquiry, he confessed that he was carrying approximately 11 kilograms of illegal Charas in his plastic trolley bag and going to Vadodara, Gujarat. He was deboarded from the train along with his plastic trolley bag and his personal bag, and the packets kept in the trolley bag were again examined and taken out on Platform No. 5. A total of 22 packets were recovered from the plastic trolley bag. Upon checking through the D.D. Kit, the test result was found to be positive for Charas. Both the teams, along with the independent witness and the suspect Rajesh Kumar Sah, reached the N.C.B. office at around 10:30 a.m. along with his belongings and a teal-colored plastic trolley bag. During the personal search of Rajesh Kumar Sah, no narcotic substance or objectionable item was recovered.

¶9

4. It is further alleged that in the statement given by the co-accused Rajesh

¶10

Kumar Sah under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, he confessed that the seized 11 kilograms of Charas was given to him by Mahmood Alam, and in this context, Mahmood Alam, the applicant had made payments to him both through bank transfer and in cash. On this basis the NCB team reached to the house of the applicant and from the search of the house of the applicant on 30.04.2025, an amount of Rs.1,04,800/- was recovered from his house. Upon being questioned, it was disclosed that the said amount was the proceeds from the sale of drugs paid to him by Mahmood Alam.

¶11

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has not been arrested form the spot. There is no recovery of any incriminating article or drug from the applicant. Regarding cash recovery from the applicant, he has submitted that the applicant is a businessman. The relevant paper regarding business transaction has been filed in the Rejoinder Affidavit. The confessional statement given by the co-accused qua the applicant during the police custody are irrelevant. There is no independent witness of the alleged recovery which makes the recovery doubtful from the co-accused. The applicant is in jail since 1.5.2025. The applicant is not a previous convict. Except the alleged confessional statements of the accused persons, which have no evidentiary value in the eyes of law, there is no authentic evidence, which could connect the applicant with the crime in question.

¶12

6 . Shri Akhilesh Kumar Awasthi, learned counsel for the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB), has opposed the bail application and submitted that the applicant has been arrested on the basis of secret information received and the confessional statement of the co-accused. It is not a case of false implication. He further contends that there could be no personal animosity between the applicant and the NCB, which is a central law enforcement agency. He submits that the recovery of Charas from the co-accused was made from his conscious possession and with his full knowledge, and the quantity of the contraband recovered is above the commercial quantity as defined under the NDPS Act. Therefore, the applicant is prima facie involved in the offence in question.

¶13

7. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties

¶14

as well as perused the record.

¶15

8. On due consideration of the material on record, it is evident that the role assigned to the applicant is distinct from that of co-accused Rajesh Kumar Sah, from whom the contraband was actually recovered; no recovery of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance has been made from the possession of the applicant; the only material connecting the applicant with the alleged offence is the confessional statement of the co-accused and the recovery of a sum of Rs.1,04,800/- from the applicant, which, according to the prosecution, is alleged to be proceeds of drug trade; the applicant has no criminal antecedents, the applicant is in custody since 01.05.2025, this Court is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the applicant may not be guilty of the offence, and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail, therefore, the twin conditions prescribed under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act appear to be prima facie satisfied, and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail and accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶16

9. Let the applicant Mahmood Alam involved in the aforesaid case crime number 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 which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶17

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

¶18

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶19

(iii) 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 or tamper with the evidence.

¶20

(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to

¶21

treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶22

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the IPC (now Section 269 BNS).

¶23

(vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. (now Section 84 BNSS)is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the IPC (now Section 209 BNS).

¶24

Order Date :- 11.8.2025 Madhu D.R/P.S

¶25

Digitally signed by :- MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mahmood Alam v. U.O.I. Thru. Zonal Director Narcotics Control Bureau Lko. Zonal Unit Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahmood Alam v. U.O.I. Thru. Zonal Director Narcotics Control Bureau Lko. Zonal Unit Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sajan @ Ram Sanehi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko.

Pravesh Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Wahid @ Popla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Kishan Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home Lucknow and Anr.

Lallan @ Nanku Gautam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lucknow

Kanhaiya Lal Vs State of U.P.