Iftikhar Ali vs State of U.P.

Heard Shri Mohd. Sadan, holding brief of Shri Vikrant Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant, and Shri O.P. Singh, learned AGA for the Staterespondents and perused the record.

¶10

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. 43 of 2026, under Section 8/21 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Rampur, during pendency of the trial.

¶11

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 co-accused Sher Afgan and Imran Khan have already been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 12.05.2026 and 11.05.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.16007 of 2026 and 15916 of 2026. It is further submitted that as per first information report, 187 Gram of smack is said to have been recovered from the exclusive possession of the applicant, which is below the commercial quantity. The applicant is languishing in jail since 09.04.2026 and the applicant is having no criminal history, 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.

¶12

Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant.

¶13

Co-accused Sher Afgan and Imran Khan have already been granted bail

¶14

BAIL No. 16365 of 2026

¶15

2

¶16

by this Court vide orders dated 12.05.2026 and 11.05.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.16007 of 2026 and 15916 of 2026. As per first information report, 187 Gram of smack is said to have been recovered from the exclusive possession of the applicant, which is below the commercial quantity. The applicant is languishing in jail since 09.04.2026 and the applicant is having no criminal history.

¶17

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.

¶18

Let the applicant- Iftikhar Ali 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 :-

¶19

(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.

¶20

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

¶21

(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.

¶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

¶26

BAIL No. 16365 of 2026

¶27

3

¶28

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.

¶29

May 14, 2026 RKM

¶30

(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)

¶31

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

Iftikhar Ali v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Iftikhar Ali 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

Javed Vs State of U.P.

Pinki Vs State of U.P.

Akram Vs State of U.P.

Ravishankar vs State of U.P.

Sunil Mishra vs State of U.P.

Rajan Tiwari @ Vishwajeet Tiwari vs State of U.P.