Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:23956 Court No. - 13 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3487 of 2025 Applicant :- Ram Shankar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Trhu. Prin. Secy. Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Saurabh Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and perused the record. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No. 22 of 2025, under Section 8/20/29 NDPS Act, Police Station Shivratan Ganj, District Amethi. As per contents of the FIR the incident is said to have taken place on 28.02.2025, when the police personnel concerned are said to have intercepted the applicant with recovery of illegal narcotics. It is submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in charges levelled against him which could be evident from the recovery memo itself which does not indicate any alleged witness of recovery. 1670 Grams Ganja which even otherwise is below commercial limit. It is submitted that there is violation of Sections 42, 50, 52-A of NDPS Act, in as much as there is no recovery in the presence of any Magistrate or collection of sample before the Gazetted Officer. It is submitted that the applicant is under incarceration since 28.02.2025. Criminal history of 10 cases has been explained in the affidavit filed in support of the said application. Learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the bail application with submission that the contents of recovery it is evident that the applicant was apprehended along with illegal narcotics. It is, however, admitted that the applicant is not having any previous criminal history. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no independent witness of illegal narcotics which is otherwise below commercial limit. The applicant admittedly does not have any previous criminal history. 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." Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material available on record, prima facie, this Court finds, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. Accordingly bail application is allowed. Let applicant- Ram Shankar involved in the aforesaid 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 which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) 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. 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 applicant 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 269 of Bharatiya Nayay Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 84 of Bharatiya Nayay Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of Bharatiya Nayay Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). (iv) 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 351 of Bharatiya Nayay Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). If in the opinion of the trial court, absence of the applicant 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 him in accordance with law. Order Date :- 25.4.2025 Muk Digitally signed by :- MOHD UMAR KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench