Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:71140 Court No. - 68 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5042 of 2025 Applicant :- Deepa Nishad And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Abhishek Giri,Atul Kumar Shahi,Brajesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Anil Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record of the case. 2. The present bail application under Section 483 B.N.S.S. has been filed on behalf of applicants, Deepa Nishad, Sonmati Nikshad and Sanidewal with a prayer to release them on bail in Case Crime No. 461 of 2024, under Sections 8/20 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station- Gambhirpur, District- Azamgarh. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that 43 Kg. 270 gm. of Gana is alleged to have been recovered from the joint possession of the applicant and co-accused persons. In fact no such recovery was effected from the applicants. It is further submitted that since such recovery is not supported by independent witness, possibility of their false implication in the crime cannot be ruled out. It is next contended that in the present case the prosecution has failed to follow strictly the provisions of Sections 42, 43, 50, 50 (6), 55, 56 and 57 of the N.D.P.S. Act. There is no report of chemical analyst. It is also argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present crime with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and victimize him. The applicants, who are in jail since 01.01.2025 having criminal history of 7 cases against the applicant no. 1, which has been explained in para 2 of the supplementary affidavit and one case against applicant no. 2 which has also been explained in para 2 of the supplementary affidavit, deserves to be released on bail on the ground of parity. In case the applicants are released on bail thy will not misuse the liberty of bail. 4. Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicants by contending that the innocence of the applicants cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage who are involved in supplying contraband, therefore, the applicants do not deserve any indulgence. In case the applicants are released on bail they will again indulge in similar activity. 5. It is settled position of law that bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Balchand @ Baliay (1977) 4 SCC 308, the Apex Court observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and opined para 2 "The basic rule may perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail, except where there are circumstances suggestive of fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like, by the petitioner who seeks enlargement on bail from the court. We do. not intend to be exhaustive but only illustrative." and considering the facts of the case and keeping in mind, the ratio of the Apex Court's judgment in the case of Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors vs Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 429, 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. 6. Without expressing any opinion on the merits, let the applicants Deepa Nishad, Sonmati and Shanidewal involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that :- 1. The applicants shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial. 2. The applicants shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment. 3. The applicants shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail. 7. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicants and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted. Order Date :- 2.5.2025 v.k.updh. Digitally signed by :- VINOD KUMAR UPADHYAY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad