Mohd Fardeen vs State of U.P.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15952 of 2026

Mohd Fardeen

	Versus	.....Applicant(s)
State of U.P.		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)		: Harshit Gupta
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)		: G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 69

¶6

HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.

¶7

Heard Shri Harshit Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant, and Shri B.P. Maurya, learned AGA for the State-respondents and perused the record.

¶8

The present bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been filed on behalf of applicant, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 72 of 2026, under Section 8/22 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, registered at Police Station Nawabganj, District Kanpur Nagar, during pendency of the trial.

¶9

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case due to ulterior motive. It is further submitted that the alleged recovered contraband from the applicant are very small quantity and are below the commercial quantity and LSD 0.15 Gram is said to have been recovered from the possession of the co-accused Mohit Jaiswal. The applicant is languishing in jail since 18.04.2026 and the applicant is having criminal history of one case relating to some property dispute and he is on bail in that case, undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty, if granted. It has also been pointed out that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.

¶10

Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant and it has been submitted by him that the alleged recovered

¶11

BAIL No. 15952 of 2026

¶12

2

¶13

contraband has been made from the joint possession of the applicant and co-accused Mohit Jaiswal, however, he does not dispute the fact that as per recovery memo, LSD 0.15 Gram is said to have been recovered from the possession of the co-accused Mohit Jaiswal.

¶14

As per allegations in the first information report, the alleged recovered contraband from the applicant are very small quantity and are below the commercial quantity and LSD 0.15 Gram is said to have been recovered from the possession of the co-accused Mohit Jaiswal. The applicant is languishing in jail since 18.04.2026 and the applicant is having criminal history of one case relating to some property dispute and he is on bail in that case

¶15

Upon considering the totality of facts, nature and the evidence reflected from record and also taking into consideration the provision of Section 37 of N.D.P.S. Act and the law laid down in the case of Nadeem Ahmad Vs. State of West Bengal 2025 LawSuit (SC) 1134 (2025) INSC 993) and Union of India vs Shiv Shanker Kesari (2007) 7 SCC 798 without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for bail. Hence, the present bail application is allowed.

¶16

Let the applicant- Mohd. Fardeen involved in the aforesaid case crime shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned :-

¶17

(i) 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.

¶18

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

¶19

(iii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of B.N.S.S.

¶20

BAIL No. 15952 of 2026

¶21

3

¶22

(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 the trial court.

¶23

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.

¶24

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

¶25

It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.

¶26

(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)

¶27

May 12, 2026 RKM

¶28

Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mohd Fardeen v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd Fardeen 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

Shivam Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Shiv Prasad Mishra Vs State of U.P.

Byas Muni Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Bablu and Another vs State of U.P.

Khalik vs State of U.P.

Anjish Kumar vs State of U.P.