Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:28803 Court No. - 13 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4035 of 2025 Applicant :- Misbahurrahman @ Ajjan 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 Manish Mathur,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for applicants, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State and perused the record. 2. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.437 of 2024 under Section 8/21(c)/29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as NDPS Act), registered in P.S.Zaidpur, District Barabanki. 3. As per contents of First Information Report, the incident is said to have taken place on 19.12.2024 but the applicant was allegedly apprehended by a police team acting upon information supplied. It appears that there is no recovery from applicant who has been nominated only on the basis of confessional statement of the apprehended persons. 4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in allegations levelled against him/her which would be evident from the fact that there is no independent witness of the alleged recovery. It is submitted that although the recovery memo indicates that the Circle Officer being a Gazetted Officer was present to show compliance of provisions of 50 and 52A NDPS Act but the said person is neither mentioned in the recovery memo nor is a witness of charge-sheet. It is therefore submitted that the aspect of compliance of Sections 50 and 52A NDPS Act cannot be substantiated during trial, the violation of which has been alleged. It is submitted that previous criminal history of applicant has been explained and he is under incarceration since 01.04.2025. 5. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail application with submission that neither Section 50 nor Section 52 A of NDPS Act requires the Gazetted Officer to be a witness in the charge-sheet. It is submitted that allegations levelled against applicant are clearly made out. It is however, admitted that previous criminal history of applicant has been explained. 6. 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." 7. 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, it appears that there is no independent witness of the alleged recovery. The aspect of Gazetted Officer not being named either in the recovery memo or even as a witness in the charge-sheet to substantiate adherence to Sections 50 and 52A NDPS Act would be subject matter of trial. Previous criminal history of applicant has been explained and he is under incarceration since 01.04.2025. In view of aforesaid discussion, conditions under Section 37 of NDPS Act stand satisfied. As such, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case 8. Accordingly bail application is allowed. 9. Let applicants Misbahurrahman @ Ajjan, 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 :- 16.5.2025 kvg/- Digitally signed by :- GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench