Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:36443 Court No. - 12 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2709 of 2025 Applicant :- Sukesh Chauhan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Amrendra Kumar,Anil Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J. Supplementary affidavit filed today by counsel for the applicant is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. Instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 14 of 2025 under Section 8/21 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, P.S.-Satrikh, District -Barabanki. As per prosecution version, the contraband substance, i.e. 305 Grams of Smack, is said to be recovered from the possession of the applicant. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been planted by the police in the instant matter. He next added that 305 Grams of Smack is said to be recovered from the possession of the present applicant, though, above than the commercial quantity, but there is no public eye witness of the alleged recovery. He further submits that though it has been shown that the Circle Officer was present and signed over the recovery memo, but he was not shown as witness in the chargesheet. He has also shown other falsity in the story of prosecution and submits that the samples which were sent for F.S.L. examination were delayed and the whole proceedings of recovery vitiates in the eyes of law. He submits that there is non-compliance of Section 50 of N.D.P.S. Act. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the Judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Arif Khan @ Agha Khan vs. State of Uttarakhand, (2018) 18 SCC 380 wherein it has been held that mandatory procedure of Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act has to be complied with in regard to search and recovery. He further added that the criminal history of the of the applicant has satisfactorily been explained in the supplementary affidavit as well as in the bail application and he is languishing in jail since 12.01.2025. He next submits that in case, the applicant is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate in the trial proceedings. Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer of bail and submits that applicant was involved in committing the aforesaid offence as contraband substance i.e. 305 Grams of Smack, has been recovered from his possession and, as such, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of record, it is evident that recovered contraband substance, i.e. 305 Grams of Smack, though, above than the commercial quantity, but there is no public eye witness of the alleged recovery; there is no independent public eye witness of the alleged recovery; prima facie, there is non compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act; the criminal history of the of the applicant has satisfactorily been explained in the supplementary affidavit as well as in the bail application and he is languishing in jail since 12.01.2025 coupled with the fact that the applicant undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate in the trial proceedings. Considering the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a case of bail. Let the applicant, Sukesh Chauhan, involved in the aforementioned 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:- (1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial; (2) 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 court. He shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code; (3) 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 313 Cr.P.C.; and (4) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case. Order Date :- 25.6.2025 Mayank Digitally signed by :- MAYANK PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench