Hakim @ Abdul Hakeem vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

2. Prosecution story is that while the police party was on patrolling duty on 30.1.2023, on a secret information received by an informer, the accused applicant who was coming on a motor bike was apprehended. From the bag held by him in his right hand, it is alleged that 350gm morphine has been recovered. 20gm sample was taken on the spot.

¶13

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is no compliance of section 50 of N.D.P.S. Act which is mandatory. The alleged circle Officer who is said to have witnessed the search and seizure is not the signatory of the recovery memo. No videography of the incident has been made. There is no independent witness of the alleged recovery. In the FSL report, the recovered substance is heroin and not morphine which makes the prosecution case doubtful. The applicant has explained criminal history of three cases in the supplementary affidavit, none of them is of N.D.P.S. Act. He is in jail since 30.1.2023.

¶14

She further submits that she has been engaged by Legal Aid committee. The applicant is a very poor person and is unable to give any surety. He has been turned out from his family. Due to extreme poverty, he is unable to do pairvi of the case.

¶15

BAIL No. 213 of 2025

¶16

2

¶17

It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released on bail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶18

4. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail. It is submitted that at the time of arrest, the applicant confessed that the recovered substance was morphine. Accordingly, morphine was recorded in the search and seizure memo, however, in the FSL report, it turns out to be heroine. Both are narcotics substance. He submits that the recovery of alleged contraband is of commercial quantity and the applicant is not liable to be enlarged on bail.

¶19

5. Having regard to all the facts and circumstances, arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of offence, evidence in support of accusation, complicity of the accused, Ankit Mishra, Circle Officer/gazetted officer who is said to have witnessed search and seizure memo is not signatory of the recovery memo, prima facie sampling does not appear to have been done as required under N.D.P.S. Rules, there is no previous criminal antecedent of the applicant of NDPS Act, as also considering twin conditions as mentioned in section 37(1)(b) of N.D.P.S. Act having been satisfied, in as much as there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused applicant might not be guilty of the offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail, the applicant is in jail for the last about three years, 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.

¶20

6. Let the applicant Hakim alias Abdul Hakeem, involved in Case Crime No. 40 of 2023 under Sections 8/21 N.D.P.S. Act, P.S. Kasimpur, district Hardoi, be released on bail on his furnishing minimum surety bond(s) keeping in view the submission advanced on his behalf by the learned counsel, to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶21

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

¶22

BAIL No. 213 of 2025

¶23

3

¶24

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

¶25

(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.

¶26

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

¶27

(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 I.P.C. (now 269 BNS)

¶28

(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 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 I.P.C. (now 209 BNS)

¶29

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶30

January 20, 2026 kkb/

¶31

Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KUMAR BARANWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Hakim @ Abdul Hakeem v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hakim @ Abdul Hakeem v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. 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

Mohd. Rafeeq vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Kajol Shrivastav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Bal Vikas Sewa Evam Pushtahar Lko. and 5 Others

Suresh Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Handloom Textile Lko. and 4 Others

Sarvesh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Dinesh @ Kalia vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Tapish Sharma vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Deptt. of Home Govt. of U.P. and 2 Others