Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:39987 Court No. - 30 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13239 of 2024 Applicant :- Anshumali Rai @ Anshu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Singh,Anubhav Awasthi,Manoj Kumar Mishra,Prashant Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record. 2. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release the applicant on bail during pendency of trial in Case Crime No. 766 of 2024, under Sections 8, 21, 25, 29, 60 N.D.P.S. Act, P.S.- Deva, District – Barabanki. 3. In the prosecution case, it is alleged that on 10.11.2024, at around 7:00 a.m., based upon the information received from an informer, an Ertiga car bearing registration No. UP50AU3999, parked on the route from Mati to Safedabad, was located. Upon searching the vehicle, the applicant along with co-accused persons were found inside. Two polythene bags containing suspected material were recovered from the vehicle. Upon inspection, 208 grams of smack were recovered from one bag and 810 grams from the other. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. It is further argued that although prior information was allegedly received by the police, the same was not reduced into writing which is mandatory requirement of Section 42 of the NDPS Act. Separate samples were not drawn at the time of recovery; rather, samples were taken after a delay of four days in the presence of a Magistrate. However, no certificate has been issued by the Magistrate regarding the said sampling, which renders the process doubtful. The arrest memo is also suspicious, as it contains the case crime number at the time of preparation, which appears highly improbable. Although the Circle Officer was allegedly present during the search and seizure, neither has he been cited as a prosecution witness nor has his statement been recorded, which raise serious doubts on the authenticity of the prosecution version. 5. Learned Counsel for the applicant further submits that identically situated co-accused, Shah Faisal and Rahul Yadav, has already been enlarged bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 03.07.2025 and 07.07.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 615 of 2025 and 13219 of 2024, respectively. It is further submitted that there is no likelihood of the applicant fleeing from judicial custody or tampering with prosecution witnesses. He undertakes that applicant will not misuse the liberty so granted in case bail is granted to him by this Court. 6. Learned AGA has opposed the bail application, however, has not been able to offer any plausible explanation as to why the Circle Officer has not been made a prosecution witness or how the arrest memo bears the case crime number at the time of its preparation. He, however, could not dispute the fact that identically situated co-accused have already been granted bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. 7. Perused the record. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly that identically situated co-accused have been granted bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, which has not been disputed by the learned AGA, charge-sheet has already been filed and the applicant is in jail since 11.11.2024, I find it to be a fit case for bail. 9. Let the applicant, Anshumali Rai alias Anshu, involved in aforesaid case, 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 (Now Section 269 of BNS). (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. (now Section 84 BNSS) 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 IPC (now Section 209 of BNS). 10. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are confined to the present bail application and shall have no bearing on the merits of the trial. . (Om Prakash Shukla, J.) Order Date :- 14.7.2025 Ajit Digitally signed by :- AJIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench