Ajij Ahmad Vs State of U.P.

The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 87 of 2026, under Section 8/18 N.D.P.S. Act 1985, Police Station- Bhuta District- Bareilly during pendency of the trial.

¶12

Counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. False recovery of 300 gm. 'Opium' has been shown from the possession of the applicant. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. The recovered substance is below the commercial quantity. The mandatory provisions of Section 42, 50, 51 and 52-A of N.D.P.S. Act have not been complied with. There is no F.S.L. report to establish that the substance recovered is 'Opium'. It is next contended that the co-accused Narendra has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 15.4.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.11606 of 2026 (Narendra Vs. State of U.P.). The applicant claims parity. The criminal history of the applicant has been explained in para 16 and 17 of the bail application. The applicant is in jail since 1.3.2026 and in case, he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶13

Learned AGA for the State has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶14

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, this Court prima facie finds that there is no independent witness to

¶15

BAIL No. 12166 of 2026

¶16

2

¶17

the alleged recovery. The recovered substance is below the commercial quantity. The mandatory provisions of N.D.P.S. Act have not been complied. There is no F.S.L. report to establish that the substance recovered is 'Opium'. The co-accused Narendra has been granted bail by this Court. Moreover, the applicant has remained confined for almost three months and after submission of the charge-sheet there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, and no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the evidence or delay the trial or intimidate the witness, therefore, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶18

Let the applicant, Ajij Ahmad involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned on the following conditions that:

¶19

i. the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

¶20

ii. the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witness;

¶21

iii. the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court.

¶22