Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:130662 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16053 of 2025 Applicant :- Vishal Sharma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Dubey, Advocate holding brief of Sri Sanjay Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Pranshu Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.113 of 2025, under Section 21/22 of The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station- Hathras Gate, District Hathras, during the pendency of trial. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the said recovery of 650 grams of Diazepam has been falsely foisted on the applicant. The applicant has nothing to do with the said offence. The said recovery has deliberately been shown to make it fall within the category of commercial quantity. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that there is no compliance of mandatory provision of Section 52-A of the N.D.P.S. Act. The criminal history of ten cases assigned to the applicant stands explained. The applicant is languishing in jail since 09.03.2025. 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 on the ground that the recovery of the contraband article is of commercial quantity. He has also stated that there is criminal history of ten cases assigned to the applicant. 7. The Supreme Court in Prabhakar Tewari vs. State of U.P. And Another, 2020 (11) SCC 648 has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail, if otherwise his case for bail is made out. 8. The Apex 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. Considering the facts of the case and keeping in mind, the ratio of the Apex 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. The bail application is allowed. 10. Let the applicant- Vishal Sharma, 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 pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed. 11. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 12. 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 :- 4.8.2025 (Ravi Kant) (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad