HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10148 of 2025 Court No. - 15 HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. According to the prosecution story, while the police party was on routine patrolling duty, they received information from an informer that a person was waiting in Nagram for a suspected deal. Acting on the said information, the police team proceeded towards the Sameshi Nashar bridge. It is further alleged that the informer pointed out a black Scorpio vehicle which was purportedly loaded with ganja. The police team intercepted the vehicle using necessary force. The present applicant, who was allegedly sitting on the rear seat beside the driver, was apprehended, whereas the driver managed to flee from the spot. Nothing was recovered from the personal search of the applicant; however, eight bags containing seventy-seven packets of ganja were allegedly recovered from the diggi (boot) of the said vehicle, weighing in total 156.60 kilograms. The incident is stated to have occurred on 03.08.2025 at about 23:47 hours. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated owing to political rivalry with the Gram Pradhan. It is contended that the mandatory provisions of Section 42 of the N.D.P.S. Act were not complied with, as the information received was neither reduced into writing nor forwarded to the superior officer within the stipulated time, despite the search being conducted on a private vehicle. It is further submitted that there Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sudhakar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Suraj Singh .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. .....Opposite Party(s) is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. It has been argued that the alleged recovery of 156.60 kilograms of ganja was made from the vehicle and not from the personal possession of the applicant. The co-accused, Shivam Yadav, has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 27.10.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8966 of 2025, and the applicant seeks parity with the said order. The applicant has no criminal history relating to offences under the N.D.P.S. Act; however, he has explained the details of five other criminal cases in paragraph 2 of the supplementary affidavit. It is submitted that the entire prosecution case is fabricated and false. It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail, submitting that the search was conducted in the presence of the ACP, and that prior intimation was sent to him. However, from the record, it does not appear that the information received by the police party was reduced into writing or that a copy thereof was forwarded to the superior officer, as required under Section 42 of the N.D.P.S. Act. Upon consideration of the rival submissions and perusal of the record, prima facie, it appears that the applicant may not be found guilty during trial, as he has no prior criminal history relating to offences under the N.D.P.S. Act and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail, thus the twin conditions enumerated under Section 37(1)(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act having been satisfied and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court finds it to be a fit case for grant of bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant Suraj Singh involved in Case Crime No. 181 of 2025 under Sections 8/20/25/60 N.D.P.S. Act, P.S. Nagram, district Lucknow, 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 BAIL No. 10148 of 2025 2 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 in accordance with law. (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). 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. October 28, 2025 R.C. BAIL No. 10148 of 2025 3 (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench