HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 20675 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Rahul Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 88 of 2025, under Section 8/20/29 of The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station- Ahraura, District Mirzapur, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per the allegations of the FIR, 51 kg of ganja is said to have been recovered from the joint possession of the applicant and co-accused Virendra Shukla. 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. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that there is no compliance of mandatory provision of Section 52A of the N.D.P.S. Act. There is no report of the chemical analyst to corroborate that the alleged contraband is ganja or not. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the applicant is languishing in jail since 27.04.2025 and he has been incarcerated for about five months, as such the Fundamental Rights of the applicant enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India stands violated. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Kusum Mishra, Rahul Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Vinay Shukla .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) The criminal history assigned to the applicant has been explained. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 8. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application. 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. 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. 11. Let the applicants - Vinay Shukla, 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. 20675 of 2025 2 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad