HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13016 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Rahul Kumar, holding brief of Sri Saurabh Pathak, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 71 of 2025, under Sections 8/20 of NDPS Act, Police Station Ajeetmal, District Auraiya, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, contraband of 33.5 kg of ganja is stated to have been recovered from Hero HF Deluxe having no. UP79 Q 5255 of the applicant. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR. There is no compliance of mandatory provision of Section 50 of N.D.P.S. Act. 6. The applicant is languishing in jail since 11.02.2025. The applicant has no criminal history. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial. 7. Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that there is no need of compliance of Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act as the said contraband was recovered from the motorcycle Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Saurabh Pathak Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Lakhan Singh @ Lalu .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) and not from the personal search of the applicant. As per the F.S.L. report, said contraband was found to be ganja, as such it is an open and shut case. The FIR is prompt, as such the applicant is not entitled for bail. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and also considering the promptness of the FIR coupled by the report of F.S.L. corroborating the prosecution story, I do not find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. 9. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected. 10. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously, in view of the principle laid down in the recent judgements 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. 11. 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 Sumit S BAIL No. 13016 of 2025 2 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad