Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:43360 Court No. - 14 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6785 of 2025 Applicant :- Samoon Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru Principal Sec. Home Counsel for Applicant :- Avinash Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the accused-applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The present bail application has been filed by the accused- applicant, Naeem alias Naeemmuddin, seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 0052 of 2023, under Sections 8B/18C of the NDPS Act, Police Station Raniganj, District Pratapgarh, during the pendency of trial. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. 4. It is submitted that the FIR was lodged by the Station House Officer on the basis of a report submitted by a Revenue Official, alleging that opium plants were found cultivated on the bhumidhari land of the applicant. A letter in this regard was stated to have been sent to the Zonal Director of the NCB, Lucknow, and the plants were preserved. 5. It is further submitted that the FIR is vague, concocted and untrustworthy, as neither the area where the poppy plants were allegedly found has been mentioned in the FIR or in any witness statement, nor has any authority, including the NCB, made an assessment of the potential yield. Therefore, it is not possible to assess the quantity or scale of the alleged cultivation at this stage. 6. It is also argued that although certain plants allegedly taken from the land of the applicant were sent to the forensic lab, the sampling was not carried out in accordance with the 1989 guidelines issued by the Revenue Department, Ministry of Finance. The entire prosecution story is doubtful in view of the absence of any independent public witness, and the witnesses shown by the police are merely pocket witnesses. Even if the prosecution case is taken at face value, the offence is punishable with imprisonment of up to ten years. 7. It has been further submitted that similarly placed co-accused persons, namely Sanjay Maurya, was granted bail by this Court vide order dated 16.11.2023 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 12745 of 2023, and co-accused Shafeer Ahmad, Shakeel Ahmad, Nafees Ahmad and Naeem @ Naeemmuddin were also enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 28.11.2023 and 24.07.2025 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 13990 of 2023 and 6767 of 2025 respectively. 8. The applicant is in judicial custody since 18.06.2025 and does not have any prior criminal history. The charge-sheet has already been filed, and there is no apprehension that the applicant, if released on bail, would abscond or misuse the liberty of bail. 9. Learned A.G.A., however, opposes the prayer for bail on the ground that the applicant is involved in a serious offence, and since opium plants were found on the bhumidhari land of the applicant, the same shall be deemed to be in his possession. Thus, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. 10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material on record, it appears that the allegation against the applicant is that poppy plants were found cultivated on his bhumidhari land. However, neither the FIR nor the statements of any witnesses disclose the extent or area of land under alleged cultivation. Though a letter was stated to have been sent by the Revenue Authority to the NCB, no material has been brought on record to show any action taken by the NCB in this regard. Furthermore, there is no detail or estimate regarding the potential yield from the alleged plantation. The charge-sheet has already been submitted. Similarly placed co-accused persons have already been granted bail. The applicant is in custody since 16.06.2025 and has no criminal antecedents. His presence before the trial court can be ensured by imposing appropriate conditions. In light of these facts, the applicability of Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act appears to be doubtful. 11. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence, evidence on record, the role attributed to the applicant, absence of any previous criminal history, the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the applicant has made out a case for grant of bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 12. Let the accused/applicant Samoon involved in above- mentioned case, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial. (ii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment. (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail. 13. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 14. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the Court concerned before the bonds are accepted. 15. Observations made herein-above by this court are only for the purpose of disposal of this bail application and shall not be construed as an expression of this Court on the merits of the case. Order Date :- 28.7.2025 R.C. Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench