HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7972 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri R.C. Uttam, Advocate holding brief of Sri Vikas Kumar Chaubey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.259 of 2024, under Sections 8/20/60 of NDPS Act, Police Station- Lalganj, District-Mirzapur with the prayer to enlarge him on bail. 4. As per the allegations of the FIR, the applicant is said to have been apprehended by the police on 16.11.2024 at about 09:30 PM and 401 Kg and 960 grams of Ganja is said to have been recovered from his possession from a truck No. UP78 FN693. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the allegations are per se false and the applicant is the helper of the said truck and he has nothing to do with the said offence. The rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act could not apply to the applicant as there is no compliance of Section 50 and 52-A of the NDPS Act. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 17.11.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground there is compliance of all the provisions of NDPS Act and the applicant was arrested along with contraband and other co-accused person. The quantum of contraband recovered itself indicates the gravity of offence, Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Vikas Kumar Chaubey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Rajkumar Yadav .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) as such, he is not entitled for bail. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact the quantum of recovery of alleged contraband i.e. 401Kg 960gms of Ganja from the conscious possession of the applicant, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. 8. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected. 9. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously in view of the principle as has been laid down in the recent judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab; 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India; (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment. 10. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. September 12, 2025 Karan BAIL No. 7972 of 2025 2 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- KARAN KUMAR RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad