Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:36625 Court No. - 12 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2830 of 2025 Applicant :- Pradeep Kumar Rawat Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. The 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. 40 of 2025, under Section 8/21 of NDPS Act, Police Station Babu Banarasi Das (BBD), District Lucknow. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the contraband substance i.e. 1.094 kg. Cocaine is said to be recovered from the possession of the applicant, though there is no independent public eye witness of the same. He also submits that all the recovery proceeding vitiates in the eyes of law as the same is under duress. He also submits that the said recovery is not fair and proper as one of the Sub Inspector, namely, Darshan Yadav was the member of raiding party, who was having enmity with present applicant, as being the employee of Honda Cars India Ltd. the applicant had asked Rs.19,000/- approximately for repairing work, which was denied by Darshan Yadav and being annoyed, the recovery of contraband substance has been shown from the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that there is material violation of Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. He also submits that the provisions of NDPS Act are stringent and, therefore, while charging the offence under the Act, the principles and procedure is to be followed in its letter and spirit but in the present case, this has been overlooked. He next submits that the chargesheet has been filed, thus, there is no possibility of tampering the evidences and he added that the applicant has no previous criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 19.02.2025 and he undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty of bail, if granted and would cooperate in the trial proceedings. Thus, submission is that the applicant may be enlarged on bail. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid but he could not dispute the specific fact, as mentioned in paragraph nos. 23 to 25 to the bail application in the counter affidavit and, thus, it is admission on the part of the State. Having considered the submissions of learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of the record, it transpires that there is no independent public eye witness of recovery of the contraband susbtance; the entire recovery proceeding vitiates in the eyes of law, as the same is under duress; the alleged recovery cannot be said to be fair and proper as the same has been shown against the appellant due to enmity; there is material violation of the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, as the same has not been followed in its letter and spirit; the chargesheet has been filed in the matter, therefore, there is no possibility of tampering the evidences; the applicant has no previous criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 19.02.2025 and he has undertaken that he will not misuse the liberty of bail, if granted and would cooperate the trial proceedings. Considering the submissions of learned counsels for the parties, 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 fit case of bail. Let the applicant-Pradeep Kumar Rawat 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 :- 26.6.2025 kkv/ Digitally signed by :- KRISHAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench