HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 20172 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ram Mohit Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 332 of 2023, under Section 8/20 of The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station- Rasulpur, District Firozabad, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per the allegations of the FIR, 1250 gm of charas is said to have been recovered from the possession of the applicant. 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. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that there is no compliance of mandatory provision of Sections 50 and 52A of the N.D.P.S. Act. There is no report of the chemical analyst to corroborate that the alleged contraband is charas or not. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that criminal history of 14 cases assigned to the applicant has been explained at the time of rejection of first bail application vide order dated 01.08.2024. The applicant is languishing in jail since 18.06.2023 and he has been incarcerated for Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Santosh Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Umardeen .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) about two years and three months and there is no likelihood of early conclusion of trial in near future as only one witness has been examined to date. The Fundamental Rights of the applicant enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India stands violated. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 7. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application. 8. Granting the bail to the accused in Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another 2024 INSC 645, the Supreme Court has observed: "7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, we are inclined to exercise our discretion in favour of the appellant herein keeping in mind the following aspects: (i) The appellant is in jail as an under-trial prisoner past four years; (ii) Till this date, the trial court has not been able to even proceed to frame charge; and (iii) As pointed out by the counsel appearing for the State as well as NIA, the prosecution intends to examine not less than eighty witnesses." 9. In the judgement passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb, AIR 2021 SC 712, it has been held as follows:- "We are conscious of the fact that the charges levelled against the respondent are grave and a serious threat to societal harmony. Had it been a case at the threshold, we would have outrightly turned down the respondent's prayer. However, keeping in mind the length of the period spent by him in custody and the unlikelihood of the trial being completed anytime soon, the High Court appears to have been left with no other option except to grant bail." 10. 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 commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail. BAIL No. 20172 of 2025 2 11. Let the applicants - Umardeen, who is involved in aforementioned case crime 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. 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. September 25, 2025 Sumit S BAIL No. 20172 of 2025 3 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad