Abu Ubaida @ Chhotu vs State Of U.P.
2026 Latest Caselaw 869 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Abu Ubaida @ Chhotu vs State Of U.P. on 16 April, 2026

Author: Vivek Varma

Bench: Vivek Varma

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC:83274
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 
 
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11817 of 2026   
 
   Abu Ubaida @ Chhotu    
 
  .....Applicant(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   State of U.P.    
 
  .....Opposite Party(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Applicant(s)   
 
:   
 
Anand Kumar, Gulab Anand   
 
  
 
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)   
 
:   
 
G.A.   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 64
 
   
 
 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.     

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri V.P. Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent. Perused the material available on record.

2. The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 64 of 2026, under Sections 8/18 N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station -Dudhara, District -Sant Kabir Nagar, during the pendency of trial.

3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. False recovery of 28.5 Kg. of Poppy Straw has been shown from the applicant. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. The recovered contraband is below commercial quantity. The mandatory provisions of Sections 42, 50 and 52-A of the N.D.P.S. Act have not been complied with. The procedure for sampling provided under Rule 8, 9,10 and 11 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022 have been violated. There is no FSL report to establish that the substance recovered is prohibited contraband. Identically placed co-accused Rizwan Ahmad has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 30.03.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.8838 of 2026. Applicant claims parity. The applicant is in jail since 24.02.2026 having no criminal history and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

4. Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

5. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this Court prima facie finds that there is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. The mandatory provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act have not been complied with. The recovered contraband is below commercial quantity. At this stage, there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. Identically placed co-accused Rizwan Ahmad has been granted bail by this Court. The applicant has no criminal history and has remained confined for more than one and half month and there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, more so when no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicants, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the evidence or delay the trial or intimidate the witness, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicants are entitled to be enlarged on bail.

6. Let the applicant Abu Ubaida @ Chhotu, involved in the aforesaid case 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 subject to the conditions that he:

(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;

(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; and,

(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.

7. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

(Vivek Varma,J.)

April 16, 2026

Manish Kr