HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15874 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. 3. Heard Sri Rajat Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for applicant, Ms. Ifra Islam, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material placed on record. 4. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.276 of 2022, under Sections 8/20/29 of NDPS Act, Police Station-Phase II, Noida, District Gautam Buddh Nagar with the prayer to enlarge him on bail. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has claimed parity with the co-accused person-Ajeet who has been enlarged on bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 01.05.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 22809 of 2023. Criminal history of four cases assigned to the applicant stands explained as he is on bail in all those cases. The applicant is in jail since 20.12.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 6. Per contra, learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are not fulfilled as there is criminal history of two cases under the NDPS Act against the applicant and there is every likelihood of applicant repeating the offence, as such, he is not entitled for bail. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rajat Kumar Shukla, Syed Ali Imam Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Vinod Kumar .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 7. It is settled by Supreme Court, even it is mandated in Section 37 of the NDPS Act that after hearing the public prosecutor, the Court has to form an opinion that prima facie no case is made out against the applicant and there is no likelihood of applicant repeating the offence. In the instant case, applicant has already repeated the offence twice, as such, the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act is not fulfilled, under the circumstances, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. 8. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected. 9. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously in view of the principle as has been laid down in the recent judgments 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. 10. 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 Karan BAIL No. 15874 of 2025 2 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- KARAN KUMAR RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad