HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1668 of 2025 Court No. - 68 HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. Heard Sri Rajrshi Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Yagvalkya Pandey, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 2. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant seeking enlargement of bail in Case Crime No. 265 of 2023 under Sections 8, 21, 27, 27(A), 29, 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act and Section 14 Foreigners Act, Police Section Beeta-2, Greater Noida, District Gautam Buddha Nagar, during the pendency of the trial before the court below. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive, on the basis of false and planted recovery of 46.200 Kg cocaine and there is no public witness of the alleged recovery. No sample was drawn on the place of recovery in the presence of applicant. He next submitted that the mandatory provisions contained in Sections 41, 50, 52, 53 and 57(2) of the NDPS Act were not complied with while making the alleged search and recovery. There is no independent witness of alleged incident. 4. It is further submitted that similarly placed co-accused John Kofie has already been granted bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 24.03.2025, passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 44763 of 2024. The applicant is in jail since last two years and no substantial progress has been made in the trial so far. The applicant has no criminal history. It was submitted that in case applicant is granted bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would co-operate during trial. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ajay Singh Yadav, Manish Kumar, Rajrshi Gupta, Virendra Kumar Maurya Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Jacob Emefiele .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 5. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. However, it could not be disputed that similarly placed co-accused John Kofie has already been granted bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 24.03.2025, passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 44763 of 2024. 6. The Apex Court in the Case of Union of India vs. Shiv Shankar Keshari, (2007) 7 SCC 798 has held that the court while considering the application for bail with reference to Section 37 of the Act is not called upon to record a finding of not guilty. It is for the limited purpose essentially confined to the question of releasing the accused on bail that the court is called upon to see if there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and records its satisfaction about the existence of such grounds. But the court has not to consider the matter as if it is pronouncing a judgment of acquittal and recording a finding of not guilty. 7. It is well settled that at pre-conviction stage, there is presumption of innocence. The object of keeping a person in custody is to ensure his availability to face the trial and to receive the sentence that may be passed. The detention is not supposed to be punitive or preventive. Seriousness of the allegation or the availability of material in support thereof are not the only considerations for declining bail. In this connection reference may be made to case of Vinod Bhandari V State of M.P. (2015) 11 Supreme Court Cases 502. 8. Considering the facts of the case and keeping in mind the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, the ratio of the Apex Court's judgment in the case of Union of India vs. Shiv Shankar Keshari, (2007) 7 SCC 798, larger mandate of Article 21 of the constitution of India, the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused- applicant, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interest of the Public/State and other circumstances, but without expressing any opinion on the merits, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. According bail application is allowed. 9. Let the applicant, Jacob Emefiele, involved in aforesaid case crime, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the BAIL No. 1668 of 2025 2 like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions: (i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii) The applicant shall appear before the Trial Court on the date fixed, unless his personal appearance is exempted. (iv) 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court. 10. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the Court concerned shall be at liberty to cancel bail of applicant in accordance with law. October 8, 2025 pks BAIL No. 1668 of 2025 3 (Ashutosh Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- PAWAN KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad