Mobeen vs State Of U.P.

1. Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant is taken on record.

2. Heard Shri Rizwan Ullah Siddiqui, learned counsel for the applicant, and Shri J.P. Singh, learned AGA for the State-respondents and perused the record.

3. 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. 79 of 2026, under Section 8/29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, registered at Police Station Chilkana, District Saharanpur, during pendency of the trial.

4. 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 first information report has been lodged against unknown and the name of the applicant has surfaced in the confessional statement of arrested co-accused Aas Mohammad Alias Asu and from whose possession 20 Gram of smack is said to have been recovered, which is much below the commercial quantity. It is further submitted that the confessional statement of the co-accused is not admissible in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Toofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu. The applicant is languishing in jail since 24.03.2026 and the applicant is having criminal history of 10 cases, which has been explained in the memo of application as well as in the supplementary affidavit filed today, 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.

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

6. First information report has been lodged against unknown and the name of the applicant has surfaced in the confessional statement of arrested co-accused Aas Mohammad Alias Asu and from whose possession 20 Gram of smack is said to have been recovered, which is much below the commercial quantity. It is further submitted that the confessional statement of the co-accused is not admissible in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Toofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu. The applicant is languishing in jail since 24.03.2026 and the applicant is having criminal history of 10 cases, which has been explained in the memo of application as well as in the supplementary affidavit filed today.

7. 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 Toofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2021) 4 SCC 1 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.

8. Let the applicant- Mobeen 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 :-

(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.

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

(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.

(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.

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

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

10. 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.

(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)

May 7, 2026

RKM