Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:34633 Court No. - 12 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5046 of 2025 Applicant :- Shakeel Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Atma Ram Mishra,Abhishek Mishra,Samanvya Dhar Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J. 1.Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record. 2.As per prosecution case, on the basis of secret information received from the informer, the accused was apprehended by the police and from his personal search 120gm smack was recovered. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the alleged recovery is false and planted. There is no public witness to the said recovery. There is no compliance of provisions of Section 50 of N.D.P.S. Act as the accused applicant has not been apprised about his right to be searched before the gazetted officer or the Magistrate. It is also contended that the recovered contraband is below the minimum commercial quantity as provided in the Schedule appended with the NDPS Act and therefore, the stringent conditions as contained in Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act are not attracted in this case. Learned counsel also submits that the applicant is in jail since 22.3.2.25. It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released on bail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail. 4.Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant. 5.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and also considering the nature of allegations, the alleged recovery is below commercial quantity, non-compliance of Section 50 NDPS Act, arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, for the period for which he is in jail and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 6.Let the applicant Shakeel, involved in Case Crime No.32 of 2025 under Sections 8/21 N.D.P.S. Act, P.S. Mawai, district Ayodhya 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 will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iv) 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. (v) 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 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. (vi) 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, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. Order Date :- 5.6.2025 kkb/ Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KUMAR BARANWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench