is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.213 dated 12.09.2025, registered at Police Station Ba under Sections 18 2. custody for 5 months and 6 days. He alleges false implication. recovery of contraband effected from him is non being 388 grams of opium. been granted bail by this Court, vide order 3. Charges have been framed o examined, out of 15 PWs. He is NDPS Act. Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 483 BNSS is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.213 dated 12.09.2025, registered at Police Station Ba under Sections 18-C, 29/61/85 NDPS Act, 1985. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner has been in custody for 5 months and 6 days. He alleges false implication. recovery of contraband effected from him is non being 388 grams of opium. Co-accused, namely, been granted bail by this Court, vide order dated 09.12.2025, Annexure P Charges have been framed on 04.04.2025, however, none has been examined, out of 15 PWs. He is not involved in NDPS Act. Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 483 BNSS is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.213 dated 12.09.2025, registered at Police Station Badhra, District Charkhi Dadri, C, 29/61/85 NDPS Act, 1985. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner has been in custody for 5 months and 6 days. He alleges false implication. The alleged recovery of contraband effected from him is non-commercial in nature, it accused, namely, Shankar Lal has since dated 09.12.2025, Annexure P- 04.04.2025, however, none has been involved in any other case under the PARVEEN KUMAR 2026.02.18 18:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. 3. The custody certificate dated 17.02.2026, filed by learned State counsel is taken on record. As per the same, the petitioner is behind bars for 5 months and 6 days. 4. Learned State counsel opposes the bail on the ground that the contraband was recovered from the petitioner, who was apprehended at the spot. However, he is unable to controvert the submissions with regard to stage of the case; the petitioner being not involved in any other similar case and the co-accused having been released on bail. 5. Heard. 6. 04.04.2025, however out of 15 PWs, none has been examined; 7. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned, if not required in any other case and shall abide by the following conditions:- (i) The petitioner will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The petitioner will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witnesses. PARVEEN KUMAR 2026.02.18 18:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. (iii) The petitioner will appear before the trial Court on each and every date fixed, unless is exempted by a specific order of Court. (iv) The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which, he is an accused, or for commission of which he is suspected of. (v) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly coerce, induce, threaten or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/ her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence in any manner. (vi) The petitioner shall not in any manner misuse his liberty. (vii) The petitioner shall furnish his address and mobile number by way of an affidavit to the trial Court and not change the same till conclusion of trial and if for any reasons, he seeks to change either of the aforesaid, it shall be done only with prior information to the learned trial Court. (viii) The petitioner shall not leave the country without prior permission of the trial Court. (ix) The trial Court/Duty Magistrate may impose any other condition, as deemed appropriate while releasing the petitioner. 8. It is made abundantly clear that in case there is any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the State shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail as granted to the petitioner by this order. 9. In view of the above, it is clarified that the observations made herein above are limited for the purpose of present proceedings and would not be construed as any opinion on the merits of the case and the trial would proceed independently of the aforesaid observations. PARVEEN KUMAR 2026.02.18 18:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.