High Court · 2025

Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant’s name has surfaced solely in the confessional statement of co- accused Nasreen Bano, who alleged that the contraband was delivered by the said individuals through the vehicle in question. It is further submitted that co-accused Khalid, who was assigned similar role as the applicant, was granted bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 22.12.2021 passed in Bail No. 15245 of 2021 and was subsequently acquitted in the trial. It is emphasized that no recovery was made from the possession of the applicant, and his implication rests only on the confessional statement of a co-accused, with no other material to support the prosecution case. It is also argued that this is a clear case of false implication, particularly in light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2021) 4 SCC 1, wherein it was held that any confessional statement made to NCB or DRI officers during investigation under Section 67 of the NDPS Act is inadmissible in evidence, being barred under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. The applicant was neither arrested from the spot nor found in possession of the alleged contraband. He has no prior criminal antecedents under the NDPS Act, except for one case of the year 2002 (Case Crime No. 107/2002 under Sections 323, 504, 506, 324 IPC read with Sections 5/8 of the Cow Slaughter Act), which has been duly explained. He surrendered before the trial court in the case of 2002 on 04.04.2025 and is in custody since then. Shri S.M. Singh Royekwar, learned counsel for the Central Bureau of Narcotics, has vehemently opposed the bail application. Although he could not point to any material on record distinguishing the applicant’s role from that of co- accused Khalid, he argued that the applicant had evaded summons issued under Section 67 of the NDPS Act and surrendered only in 2025, and should not be rewarded for the delay. However, the record does not contain any evidence substantiating this claim except for the process issued in 2025. Considering the fact that no recovery has been made from the possession of the applicant, there is no corroborative evidence on record apart from the inadmissible confessional statement of a co-accused, and further, that a co-accused assigned a similar role has already been acquitted, this Court finds reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant may not be held guilty of the alleged offence. Moreover, in the absence of any prior criminal antecedents under the NDPS Act, the Court is also of the opinion that the applicant is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. In light of the above observations, the twin conditions as envisaged under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act appear to be satisfied. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant Saakir involved in Case Crime No. 08/2014, under Sections 8/21/29 N.D.P.S. Act, P.S. Central Bureau of Narcotics Lucknow, District Lucknow, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) The applicant shall report before the Trial Court during the first week of each month until the conclusion of the trial. (ii) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (iii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (iv) 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. (v) 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. (vi) 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 of the Indian Penal Code (Now Section 269 of BNS). (vii) 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 Section 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 IPC (now Section 209 of BNS). Order Date :- 24.7.2025 R.C. RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant’s name has surfaced solely in the confessional statement of co- accused Nasreen Bano, who alleged that the contraband was delivered by the said individuals through the vehicle in question. It is further submitted that co-accused Khalid, who was assigned similar role as the applicant, was granted bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 22.12.2021 passed in Bail No. 15245 of 2021 and was subsequently acquitted in the trial. It is emphasized that no recovery was made from the possession of the applicant, and his implication rests only on the confessional statement of a co-accused, with no other material to support the prosecution case. It is also argued that this is a clear case of false implication, particularly in light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2021) 4 SCC 1, wherein it was held that any confessional statement made to NCB or DRI officers during investigation under Section 67 of the NDPS Act is inadmissible in evidence, being barred under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. The applicant was neither arrested from the spot nor found in possession of the alleged contraband. He has no prior criminal antecedents under the NDPS Act, except for one case of the year 2002 (Case Crime No. 107/2002 under Sections 323, 504, 506, 324 IPC read with Sections 5/8 of the Cow Slaughter Act), which has been duly explained. He surrendered before the trial court in the case of 2002 on 04.04.2025 and is in custody since then. Shri S.M. Singh Royekwar, learned counsel for the Central Bureau of Narcotics, has vehemently opposed the bail application. Although he could not point to any material on record distinguishing the applicant’s role from that of co- accused Khalid, he argued that the applicant had evaded summons issued under Section 67 of the NDPS Act and surrendered only in 2025, and should not be rewarded for the delay. However, the record does not contain any evidence substantiating this claim except for the process issued in 2025. Considering the fact that no recovery has been made from the possession of the applicant, there is no corroborative evidence on record apart from the inadmissible confessional statement of a co-accused, and further, that a co-accused assigned a similar role has already been acquitted, this Court finds reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant may not be held guilty of the alleged offence. Moreover, in the absence of any prior criminal antecedents under the NDPS Act, the Court is also of the opinion that the applicant is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. In light of the above observations, the twin conditions as envisaged under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act appear to be satisfied. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant Saakir involved in Case Crime No. 08/2014, under Sections 8/21/29 N.D.P.S. Act, P.S. Central Bureau of Narcotics Lucknow, District Lucknow, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) The applicant shall report before the Trial Court during the first week of each month until the conclusion of the trial. (ii) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (iii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (iv) 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. (v) 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. (vi) 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 of the Indian Penal Code (Now Section 269 of BNS). (vii) 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 Section 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 IPC (now Section 209 of BNS). Order Date :- 24.7.2025 R.C. RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench