HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6246 of 2025 Court No. - 15 HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J. 1.Heard learned counsel for the applicant, S Mr. Vaibhav Saxena, learned Advocate holding brief of Shri Mr. S.M.Singh Royekwar, learned counsel for CBN and perused the record. 2.The present bail application has been filed seeking bail in case crime/F.I.R No.03/2025/CBN/LKO under Sections 8/22/29 of NDPS Act, P.S. CBN, District Lucknow. 3. In the prosecution case it is alleged that on the basis of secret information received on 12.05.2025 a team was constituted by the Central Bureau of Narcotics under the leadership of Sub-Inspector Avanish Bhaadu and two independent witnesses were also taken along with him. At about 19:15 hours, a boy wearing black T-shirt near Parvati Complex started picking up the Cartoon near the road. Upon that Avinash Bhaadu inquired from him who told his name Ali Akhtar Rizvi, he was made aware about the secret information with the team that these Cartoon contained illegal Pentazocine injection and he has to be searched. He was made aware about his right under Section 50 of the NDPS Act. He gave written permission for the search. On search made in front of punch witnesses, 15 Cartoons Pentazocine injection have been found. Ali Akhtar Rizvi has informed that these consignments belong to one Prabhat Dubey another co-accused. It is alleged that Prabhat Dubey works in M/S Pragati Enterprises. He further told Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Azizullah Khan, Mohammad Alishah Faruqi, Qazi Sabihur Rahman, Razaur Rahman Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : S M Singh Royekwar Ali Akhtar Rizvi .....Applicant(s) Union Of India Thru. C.B.N. Lko .....Opposite Party(s) that these consignments have to be shifted to M/S Minemed Transport Nagar, Lucknow. Prabhat Dubey was called on the spot who told that these Cartoons belong to M/S Shri Agency Ameenabad and have to be sent to M/S Minemed Transport Nagar, Lucknow. Both the accused could not show any legal document regarding the transport of these Pentazocine injection. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is alleged to have worked under Prabhat Dubey, who was operating M/s Prabhat Enterprises. It is stated that the co-accused Prabhat Dubey held a valid licence in the name of the said firm, and that his wife was also running three separate agencies. The co-accused Prabhat Dubey has already been granted bail vide order dated 13.10.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 6204 of 2025. The applicant, therefore, seeks parity with the order granting bail to the co-accused. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the Union of India, has opposed the bail application; however, could not dispute that it is a case of parity. 6. On due consideration to the fact that the applicant has no criminal antecedents; the provisions of section 8 of the Drugs of Cosmetics Act as well as section 65 A of the NDPS Rules, bail order of co-accused Prabhat Dubey and the fact that prima facie there appears to be no recovery from the applicant or his premises, undertaking given by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant will cooperate in the investigation, bail order of the co-accused, referred to above, twin condition under section 37 of NDPS Act appears to have been, prima facie, satisfied, the applicant is in jail since 13.5.2025, tit is a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail. 7.Let the applicant Ali Akhtar Rizvi 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 BAIL No. 6246 of 2025 2 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 I.P.C. (now 269 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 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 I.P.C. (now 209 BNS). 8.The application is allowed accordingly. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are confined to the present bail application and shall have no bearing on the merit of the trial. December 12, 2025 R.C. BAIL No. 6246 of 2025 3 (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench