Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:28199 Court No. - 13 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4833 of 2023 Applicant :- Ram Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Awasthi,Mohammad Imaran,Sachin Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J. 1. Heard Mr. Sachin Verma, learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State and perused the record. 2. This second bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.400 of 2021 under Section 8/20/27A of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as NDPS Act), registered in P.S.Dalmau, District Raebareli. 3. As per contents of First Information Report, the incident is said to have taken place on 21.12.2021 when a police team during routine checking is said to have intercepted a Truck bearing Registration No.HR 38S4792 which was being driven by applicant and recovery of illegal narcotics has been indicated. 4. First Bail Application of applicant bearing no.9829 of 2022 was rejected vide order dated 31.08.2022 indicating recovery of 140 kg. Ganja from the said truck. 5. supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. 6. Learned counsel for applicant submits that a bare perusal of recovery memo will indicate serious violations of Sections 42, 50 and 52A of NDPS Act inasmuch as the sampling has not been done in presence of either a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. It is submitted that subsequent to rejection of first Bail application, trial proceedings, at present, are only at the stage of evidence of P.W. 4 with seven more witnesses yet to be examined while applicant is under incarceration since 21.12.2021 without any previous criminal history. 7. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail application with submission that the aspects on merits have already been determined by this Court earlier while rejecting the first Bail Application. He however admits that there is no previous criminal history of applicant and as yet only three prosecution witnesses have been examined. 8. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 has specifically held that bail is to be a norm and an under-trial is not required to be in jail for ever pending trial. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment are as under :- "21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty." "27. This Court, time and again, has stated that bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. It has also observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution." 9. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties, perusal of material available on record and prima facie subject to further evidence being led during trial, the aspect of violations of Sections of NDPS Act would be subject matter of evidence during course of trial. 10. In pursuance of directions issued earlier, a report from trial court dated 26.04.2025 has been brought on record corroborating the aspect that as yet only three prosecution witnesses have been examined while non-bailable warrant has been issued against next prosecution witness. Applicant is under incarceration since 21.12.2021 and with seven more prosecution witnesses yet to be examined, clearly, there is no hope of early conclusion of trial. In view of aforesaid discussion, conditions under Section 37 of NDPS Act stand satisfied. As such, applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 11. Accordingly bail application is allowed. 12. Let applicants Ram Kumar, involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on each of them furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iii) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iv) The applicants 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. If in the opinion of the trial court, absence of the applicants is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against them in accordance with law. Order Date :- 14.5.2025 kvg/- Digitally signed by :- GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench