Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Union Of India vs Amir Hussain Sayyed on 23 February, 2026
Author: J.K. Maheshwari
Bench: J.K. Maheshwari
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2026
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 10451 of 2025)
UNION OF INDIA Appellant (s)
VERSUS
AMIR HUSSAIN SAYYED & ANR. Respondent(s)
O R D E R
1) Leave granted.
2) The appellant-Union of India has preferred the
instant appeal assailing the order dated 21.03.2025
vide which the High Court1 allowed the regular bail
application2 preferred by respondent No. 1 and
released him on bail in connection with F.No.
DRI/MZU/C/INT-23/2023 registered with Directorate of
Revenue Intelligence, Mumbai Zonal Unit, Mumbai, for
the offences punishable under Section 8(c) read with
Sections 21(c), 23(c), 27A, 28, 29 and 30 of the
Signature Not Verified
NDPS Act3.
Digitally signed by
NIDHI AHUJA
Date: 2026.02.24
1 IST
17:32:03
Reason: High Court of Judicature at Bombay
2
Bail Application No.1428 of 2024
3
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
1
Crl.A. No. / 2026(@SLP (Crl.) No. 10451/ 2025)
3) We have heard learned Additional Solicitor
General appearing for the appellant and learned
counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 and
have perused the reasonings assigned by the High
Court while releasing respondent No.1 on bail with
certain conditions.
4) It is revealed from the impugned order that the
High Court has relied upon its order dated
19.03.2025, in particular para 4, wherein it is
stated that the case of prosecution is prima facie
based on the alleged bank statement, CDR record and
the statement of independent witnesses which are
appended to the chargesheet. While appreciating the
same, it is merely referred by the High Court that
the statement of the co-accused recorded under
Section 67 of the NDPS Act is not admissible in
evidence, therefore, on the basis of the same,
implication of respondent No. 1 is not justified.
5) In this regard, certainly it is suffice to say
that confessional statement of the co-accused may
not by itself have much evidentiary value in proving
2
Crl.A. No. / 2026(@SLP (Crl.) No. 10451/ 2025)
the guilt of a person; however, the connected
corroborative evidence including CDR record and bank
statement showing transactions and other documentary
evidence may be relevant factors for consideration
even at the time of releasing the respondent on
bail, which has not been duly considered in the
order impugned. Therefore, in our view and in the
facts of this case, without appreciating the said
material produced by the prosecution to establish
the case against respondent grant of bail in the
present case is not justified.
6) At this stage, learned Additional Solicitor
General appearing on behalf of the appellant submits
that bail granted was with certain conditions;
however, the respondent No. 1 has violated the said
conditions and, on that ground also, respondent No.1
may not be entitled to be released on bail. However,
all these arguments cannot be appreciated at the
stage when we are examining the validity of the
order of grant of bail on merits. The violation of
conditions may be relevant at the stage when the
prosecution or the complainant applies for
3
Crl.A. No. / 2026(@SLP (Crl.) No. 10451/ 2025)
cancellation of bail. As such, we are not embarking
upon the said argument and leaving it open to the
appellant to raise it before the appropriate forum
at the stage of seeking cancellation of bail. In
this regard, guidance may be taken from judgment
dated 13.02.2026 passed in Balmukund Singh Gautam v.
State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr.4
7) In view of the foregoing, we accordingly set
aside the impugned order of grant of bail, while
allowing this appeal.
8) Respondent No. 1 is presently in custody on
account of non-appearance before this Court and the
order of his production under non-bailable warrant
of arrest. Notice was initially issued in the
proceedings of this case dated 23.07.2025. Fresh
notice was issued in the proceedings dated
12.09.2025. Due to his non-appearance, initially,
bailable warrant was issued in the proceedings dated
08.10.2025 in order to secure his presence.
9) Since the Respondent No. 1 did not appear even
4
2026 INSC 157 (Criminal Appeal No.885 of 2026).
4
Crl.A. No. / 2026(@SLP (Crl.) No. 10451/ 2025)
upon issuance of bailable warrant by this Court,
non-bailable warrant was issued vide the proceedings
dated 17.11.2025 in the present appeal. The said
order is relevant and is therefore reproduced:
“1. On issuance of notice, it was deemed served on
the address given in the petition. Thereafter
bailable warrant was issued on08.10.2025. As per the
report received, it appears that the Police has made
an attempt to search for respondent No. 1 at about
three addresses but not been on any of them. On
making an attempt to contact on mobile number, he is
coming on line.
2. Considering the aforesaid, in our view, it is a
fit case wherein non-bailable warrant of arrest of
the respondent No.1 deserved to be issued.
Accordingly, we direct that non-bailable warrant of
arrest be issued against Respondent No.1 who shall be
arrested and be put to the judicial custody and
produced before this Court on the next date of
listing through the Station House Officer of the
jurisdictional Police Station.
3. Steps be taken by the petitioner with the
assistance of the State Government.
4. List on 12.12.2025.”
10) On the next date of hearing also, the
Respondent No. 1 did not appear and this Court was
constrained to issue fresh non-bailable warrant and
to publish notice of the special leave petition in
the leading newspapers vide order in proceedings
dated 12.12.2025.
5
Crl.A. No. / 2026(@SLP (Crl.) No. 10451/ 2025)
11) The Respondent No. 1 finally appeared before
this Court on 30.01.2026 and he was taken into
custody on the same date. The order in proceedings
dated 30.01.2026 is relevant and is thus reproduced:
“1. Pursuant to previous order dated 12.12.2025,
respondent No.1 has been produced before the Court
with a police guard. He be sent to custody.
2. As prayed, respondent No. 1 is at liberty to file
counter affidavit within two weeks.
3. Rejoinder, if any, may be filed within a week
thereafter.
4. List after three weeks.”
12) Since the Respondent No. 1 is already in
custody, he shall remain in custody subject to a
fresh decision on the bail petition.
13) In consequence of the above and setting aside
of the order impugned, we direct to restore the Bail
Application No. 1428 of 2024 to the file and for it
to be listed before the appropriate Bench of the
High Court for taking a decision afresh after
hearing on all the relevant points raised by the
parties.
14) We make it clear that we have not expressed any
opinion with respect to the material itself or the
6
Crl.A. No. / 2026(@SLP (Crl.) No. 10451/ 2025)
merits of the case, however, the High Court is free
to examine all the material on record and to take a
view which is plausible, uninfluenced by this order,
wherein the impugned order of the High Court
granting bail has been set aside primarily on the
ground that the material placed before the Court,
has not been properly considered at the time of
granting bail.
15) Needless to observe that the High Court may
take a decision on the restored Bail Application as
expeditiously as possible.
16) With the aforesaid observations, the appeal is
allowed. Pending application(s), if any, shall
stand disposed of.
………………………………………………., J.
[ J.K. MAHESHWARI ]
………………………………………………., J.
[ ATUL S. CHANDURKAR ]
New Delhi;
February 23, 2026.
7
Crl.A. No. / 2026(@SLP (Crl.) No. 10451/ 2025)
ITEM NO.3 COURT NO.3 SECTION II-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 10451/2025
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 21-03-2025
in BA No. 1428/2024 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Bombay]
UNION OF INDIA Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
AMIR HUSSAIN SAYYED & ANR. Respondent(s)
Date : 23-02-2026 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE J.K. MAHESHWARI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ATUL S. CHANDURKARFor Petitioner(s) :
Mr. S.V. Raju, A.S.G.
Mr. Pratyush Srivastava, Adv.
Ms. Prerna Dhal, Adv.
Mr. Annam Venkatesh, Adv.
Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv.
Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR
For Respondent(s) :
Mr. Keshav Lalchand Damani, Adv.
Mr. Ashok Kumar Gupta II, AORMr. Samrat Krishnarao Shinde, Adv.
Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AORUPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1) Leave granted.
2) The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(NIDHI AHUJA) (NAND KISHOR)
DEPUTY REGISTRAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
[Signed order is placed on the file.]
8
