Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:122029 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 20262 of 2025 Applicant :- Nadeem @ Raghu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Surendra Narayan Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant today is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Surendra Narayan Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Pranshu Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 95 of 2025, under Section 8/21/29 of The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station- Kutubsher, District Saharanpur, during the pendency of trial. 4. 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. The applicant is not named in the FIR and he has nothing to do with the said offence. It is further stated that the recovered contraband is below the commercial quantity. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that there is no compliance of mandatory provision of Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act. 5. The criminal history of eight cases assigned to the applicant has been explained. The applicant is languishing in jail since 02.05.2025. 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, 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 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 of bail is made out. 9. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusal of record and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment as well as totality of facts and circumstances, at this stage without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail. 10. Let the applicant-Nadeem @ Raghu, 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 the 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 :- 24.7.2025 Sumit S (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad