HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33336 of 2025 Court No. - 69 HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J. 1. Heard Sri Pawan Kumar, Advocate, holding brief of Sri A.K. Raghuvanshi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Shiv Dutt Shukla, learned AGA for the State- respondents and perused the record. 2. The present bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been filed on behalf of applicant with a prayer to release her on bail in Case Crime No. 98 of 2025 under Section 8/20 NDPS Act, registered at Police Station G.R.P., District Moradabad during pendency of the trial. 3. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that co-accused Nirmal Ram has been granted bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 05.1.2026 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 33511 of 2025. It is further submitted that 32.100 kg of Ganja is said to have been recovered from one trolley bag and one bagpack, however, mandatory provisions of sections 52-A of NDPS Act have not been complied with as samples have not been collected in accordance with Rules 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the Rules published by the Union of India in the official gazette nor the same have been certified by any any Judicial Magistrate. It is further submitted that applicant is languishing in jail since 08.7.2025 and she undertakes that she will not misuse the liberty, if granted. It has also been pointed out that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial. 4. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and submits that mandatory provisions of NDPS Act have been complied with and videography has also been done in accordance with section 105 BNSS. 5. As per the FIR, 32.100 kg of Ganja is said to have been recovered from one trolley bag and one bagpack, however, it is submitted that mandatory provisions of sections 52-A of NDPS Act have not been complied with as samples have not been collected in accordance with Rules 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the Rules published by the Union of India in the official gazette nor the same have been certified by any any Judicial Magistrate. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anjani Kumar Raghuvanshi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Sonam Devi .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) Co-accused Nirmal Ram has been granted bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and applicant is languishing in jail since 08.7.2025. 6. Upon considering the totality of facts, nature and evidence reflected from record, taking into consideration the provision of Section 37 of the NDPS Act and in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India vs. Shiv Shanker Kesari, 2007 (7) SCC 798 and Nadeem Ahmad vs. State of West Bengal 2025 LawSuit (SC) 1134 (2025 INSC 993) without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for bail. Hence, the present bail application is ALLOWED. 7. Let the applicant Sonam Devi involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions :- (i) 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. (ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of B.N.S.S. (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 the trial court. (v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through her counsel. 8. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 9. It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order. May 5, 2026 Madhurima BAIL No. 33336 of 2025 2 (Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.) Digitally signed by :- MADHURIMA GARG High Court of Judicature at Allahabad