Tausif Raza vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 417 of 2025

Tausif Raza

Versus		.....Applicant(s)
State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mohd. Azam Pandey	Khan,	Anil Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 15

¶6

HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.

¶8

It is alleged in the prosecution case that on the basis of secret information received by the prosecuting agency on 23.10.2024 at about 00:40 hours, on the Faizabad–Lucknow Highway near Ahmadpur Toll Plaza, Police Station Jaidpur, District Barabanki, the accused-applicant was apprehended by the STF in association with the local police. It is further alleged that from a pithu bag being carried by the applicant, thirteen packets were recovered, from which 11.582 kilograms of charas is stated to have been seized, along with cash amounting to Rs. 1,637/-, one mobile phone and other articles.

¶9

Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has no criminal antecedents. It is further contended that a perusal of the arrest memo reveals that the case crime number has been mentioned therein, which is improbable inasmuch as, at the relevant point of time, the FIR had not yet been registered. Learned counsel further submits that there has been noncompliance of the mandatory provisions of Section 42 of the NDPS Act, as the prior information allegedly received from the mukhbir was not reduced into writing. It is also contended that nothing incriminating has been recovered from the personal search of the applicant.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that a perusal of the FIR

¶11

BAIL No. 417 of 2025

¶12

2

¶13

and the recovery memo shows that the prosecution case is silent as to the exact place from where the bag containing the alleged contraband was recovered. It is further contended that there is no cogent material on record demonstrating the manner in which the samples were drawn. There is complete non-compliance of the provisions of Notifications No. 1/88 and 1/99, which are mandatory in nature. It is also submitted that although the seizure is alleged to have been conducted in the presence of the Circle Officer, the said officer has not appended his signature on the recovery memo. Learned counsel further submits that the applicant cannot be said to be in conscious possession of the alleged contraband and that neither the driver nor the conductor of the bus, nor any independent passenger, has been made a witness to the alleged recovery.

¶14

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

¶15

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶16

Perused the record.

¶17

Upon consideration of the material available on record, including the manner of search and seizure, the preparation of recovery memo, the absence of compliance with the mandatory provisions under Section 42 of the NDPS Act as well as the notification referred above and lack of independent witnesses particularly when the alleged recovery has been made from the applicant who is traveling from bus, this Court finds that the prosecution case is doubtful at this stage.

¶18

It is further noted that although the seizure proceedings are said to have been conducted in the presence of the Circle Officer, even though he has not signed the recovery memo, which casts further doubt on the authenticity and credibility of the seizure.

¶19

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, so also the fact that the applicant has no previous criminal antecedents under the NDPS Act, the twin conditions of 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act appears to have been

¶20

BAIL No. 417 of 2025

¶21

3

¶22

satisfied and there are reasonable grounds for believing that the applicant may not be held guilty of the alleged offence and he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail and considering the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 24.10.2024, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶23

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶24

Let the applicant Tausif Raza , involved in Crime No. 375/2024, under Sections 20(B) and 8 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station Zaidpur, District Barabanki, be released on bail in the aforementioned case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Magistrate/Court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶25

(i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

¶26

(ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;

¶27

(iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial Court.

¶28

Any other condition(s) which the trial court/concerned court may deem fit and proper, in the circumstances of the case, may also be imposed.

¶29

It is clarified that the observations made in this order are confined to the present bail application and shall have no bearing on the merits of the trial.

¶30

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶31

January 20, 2026

¶32

R.C.

¶33

Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Tausif Raza v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tausif Raza v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home 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

Ram Singh @ Nanka Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Shivpati and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Gurpindar Singh @ Pindar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Tanveer Ahmad vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Rinki and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Dayanand Sharma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another