Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:119902 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15610 of 2025 Applicant :- Sarajil Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Siddhartha Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Siddhartha Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. Ifra Islam, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 227 of 2025, under Sections 8/20 of NDPS Act, Police Station- Civil Line, District- Moradabad, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution case, the applicant is stated to have been arrested by the police and recovery of 1250 gm of Charas is alleged to have been made from the possession in polythene bag which was being carried in the hand of applicant on 03.04.2025 at about 10:45 PM. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and to victimize him. There is no compliance of Section 50 and 52A of the NDPS Act, as such, it is a clear cut case of false implication. He has further stated that the applicant has a criminal history of one case which stands explained. The applicant is languishing in jail since 04.04.2025. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 6. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application. 7. In Arif Khan @ Agha Khan v. State of Uttarakhand (2018) 18 SCC 380, in which the Supreme Court held that Section 50 of the NDPS Act mandatorily required search of the suspect/accused to be carried out in the presence of a magistrate or Gazetted officer, even if such a suspect/accused had waived the right to be taken to a magistrate or Gazetted Officer. 8. The Supreme Court in the Case of Union of India vs. Shiv Shankar Keshari, (2007) 7 SCC 798 has held that the court while considering the application for bail with reference to Section 37 of the Act is not called upon to record a finding of not guilty. It is for the limited purpose essentially confined to the question of releasing the accused on bail that the court is called upon to see if there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and records its satisfaction about the existence of such grounds. But the court has not to consider the matter as if it is pronouncing a judgment of acquittal and recording a finding of not guilty. 9. In the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, (2020) 11 SCC 648, the Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused by itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail. 10. Considering the facts of the case and keeping in mind, the ratio of the Supreme Court's judgment in the case of Union of India vs. Shiv Shankar Keshari (supra) 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. 11. Let the applicant- Sarajil, who is involved in aforementioned case 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. (i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence during trial. (ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed. 12. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 13. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. Order Date :- 22.7.2025 Karan (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- KARAN KUMAR RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad