Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:11222 Court No. - 68 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 42293 of 2024 Applicant :- Chintamani Khatua Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pushpa Joshi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J. Heard Shri Shantanu, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA Shri Mithlesh Kumar for the State-respondent and perused the records. The present bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of applicant, Chintamani Khatua with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 199 of 2024, under Section 8/20/29/60 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station- Chopan , District- Sonbhadra, during the pendency of the trial before the Court below. It has been argued that 76 Kg 500 grms of Ganja is alleged to have been recovered from the joint possession of three persons sitting in a car. The applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this very case. He has no other criminal history apart from the present case. There is no compliance of Section 50/55/57/42 of the NDPS Act. The Circle Officer (City) has been shown as Gazetted Officer, but as per the case diary his signature is not present on the search memo which clearly demonstrates that compliance of Section 50 of the Act has not been complied with. The Circle Officer (City) has also not been shown as a witness nor his statement has been recorded. The bail application of the other co-accused had been rejected at the stage of non submission of charge sheet, however, in this case, in the case of the applicant, charge-sheet has been submitted and there is no chance of tampering with the evidence and witnesses. Hence, bail has been prayed for. Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant by submitting that bail applications of co-accused have been rejected and the present bail application also warrants rejection, but could not dispute the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant. It is settled position of law that bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Balchand @ Baliay (1977) 4 SCC 308, the Apex Court observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and opined para 2 "The basic rule may perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail, except where there are circumstances suggestive of fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like, by the petitioner who seeks enlargement on bail from the court. We do. not intend to be exhaustive but only illustrative." and considering the facts of the case and keeping in mind, the ratio of the Apex Court's judgment in the case of Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors vs Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 429, larger mandate of Article 21 of the constitution of India, the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused-applicant, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interest of the public/ State and other circumstances, but without expressing any opinion on the merits, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. Without expressing any opinion on the merits, let the applicant Chintamani Khatua involved in abovesaid case crime 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 that :- 1. The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial. 2. The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment. 3. The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted. Order Date :- 22.1.2025 Ravi Prakash (Ashutosh Srivastava, J.) Digitally signed by :- RAVI PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad