This is a bail order at the pre-trial stage, not a finding on the merits of the NDPS allegations. The Trial Court will fix the bail terms, and the petitioner must cooperate with the trial. The order does not record any view on whether the prosecution case will ultimately succeed.
- Case
- Mohammad Fesal @ Fezan @ Lallu v. State of Gujarat
- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Decision
- Bench
- Prashant Kumar Mishra; Shree Chandrashekhar
- Case numbers
- SLP(Crl) 18072/2026
- Outcome
- Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 18072/2026 disposed of. Petitioner to be released on bail in FIR No. 11191011240122 of 2024 on such terms and conditions as may be imposed by the Trial Court, subject to cooperating with the trial. Pending applications also disposed of.
Bail granted, petition disposed of
The Supreme Court has released Mohammad Fesal, also known as Fezan and Lallu, on bail in a Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act case, and disposed of his special leave petition. The order, passed by Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Shree Chandrashekhar on 4 November 2026, leaves the terms and conditions of bail to be imposed by the Trial Court, subject to the condition that the petitioner cooperate with the trial.
The petition arose from a Gujarat High Court order dated 24 June 2026 in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 13918 of 2026. The record of proceedings lists the matter as Item No. 14 in Court No. 11, and records two exemption applications, one for filing the certified copy of the impugned judgment and one for filing the official translation, alongside the main petition.
Two years in jail, trial yet to begin
The Court's reasoning rests on a single recorded fact about delay. The petitioner is in jail since 11 June 2024, and the trial is yet to begin, as not a single prosecution witness has been examined. Considering the length of pre-trial detention on that footing, the Court said it was inclined to release the petitioner on bail.
The case concerns FIR No. 11191011240122 of 2024, registered at Police Station D.C.B., Ahmedabad City, for offences under Sections 8(c), 21(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The order does not discuss the quantity of contraband, the evidence collected, or the merits of the prosecution case, and it records no view on those matters.
What the Trial Court will now decide
Bail is not unconditional. The petitioner is to be released on such terms and conditions as may be imposed by the Trial Court, and the order makes cooperation with the trial an express condition. Any pending applications in the petition stand disposed of along with the main petition.
The practical consequence is that the Trial Court, which will supervise the trial, fixes the bail conditions, including any bond, surety, reporting, or travel conditions it considers appropriate. Breach of those conditions, or failure to cooperate with the trial, would be a matter for that Court in the first instance.
What this order does not decide
The order decides only the question of bail pending trial. It records no finding on whether the NDPS allegations are proved, and it does not fix the bail terms itself, leaving those to the Trial Court. The petition is disposed of on the bail question alone, and the trial will proceed before the Trial Court on its own merits.
BANTHRY ANALYSISFor law students: bail as a check on pre-trial delay
This short order illustrates how appellate courts use bail to respond to pre-trial delay without prejudging the trial. The Court did not need to weigh the strength of the NDPS case: the combination of a long period in custody with a trial that had not begun, and no prosecution witness examined, was enough to justify release on conditions.
For revision, contrast this with a bail order that turns on the merits, such as a finding that the material does not prima facie connect the accused with the offence. Here the ground is procedural and temporal: liberty pending trial is protected by ensuring that custody does not become punishment before conviction, while the trial itself proceeds on its merits before the Trial Court.
READING PROMPTSQuestions for a closer reading
- What two facts about the progress of the trial did the Court record before granting bail?
- Why does a bail order of this kind not amount to a finding that the accused is innocent of the NDPS charges?
- What role does the Trial Court retain after the Supreme Court's order, and what condition is placed on the petitioner?
