Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:63526 Court No. - 68 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9901 of 2025 Applicant :- Sandeep Chaudhari Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ghanshyam Das Mishra,Sunil Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J. 1. Learned AGA has filed compliance affidavit, which is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Arimardan Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record of the case. 3. The present bail application under Section 483 BNSS has been filed on behalf of applicant, Sandeep Chaudhar with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 1208 of 2024, under Sections 21/22 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station- Highway, District- Mathura. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that 23 packets of Norphin 2 ml. injection, one avil injection 10ml., 2 siringe, 2 needles, diazepam injection 2 ml., 280 box, in every box 10 injection total 5.60 Kg., 02 BL Norphin injection 129 box every box have 25 nos. total 06.45 Kg., 03 diaza injection 2ml., 05 box total 100 gm., 45 alprazolam 0.5 mg total 200 tablets, 05 proxycospas 4 box in every box 240 tablets closed and one open, 120 tablets total 1080 tablets, 06 spajmo, proxyvon plus 17 strips every have 8 total 136 tablets, 0.7 avil 10 ml. injection, 61 box every has 25 nos. one open box in which 24 total 1549 injection, 08 needle 15 box having 100 nos. total 187 nos. total 1687, 09 siringe in one box having 100 nos. 195 total 295 nos. total recovery is 10 coartoon and one Activa scooty without number plate total Rs. 1230/-, one Apple Mobile are alleged to have been recovered from joint possession of the applicant and co-accused. In fact no such recovery was effected from the applicant. It is further submitted that since such recovery is not supported by independent witness, possibility of his 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 Section 45, 50, 51 and 52 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 applicant, who is in jail since 28.12.2024 having no criminal history to his credit, deserves to be released on bail. In case the applicant is released on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 5. Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage who is involved in supplying contraband, therefore, the applicant does not deserve any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activity. 6. 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. 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. 7. Without expressing any opinion on the merits, let the applicant Sandeep Chaudhary involved in abovesaid case crime 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 that :- 1. The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial. 2. The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment. 3. The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail. 8. 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 applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted. Order Date :- 23.4.2025 v.k.updh. Digitally signed by :- VINOD KUMAR UPADHYAY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad