HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 21552 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Istiyaq Ali, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Arun Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.162 of 2025, under Section 8/21 of The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station- Gangoh, District- Saharanpur, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per the allegations of the FIR, the applicant is said to have been apprehended by the police on 15.5.2025 at about 09:30 a.m. and 20 gram Smack is said to have been recovered from his possession alongwith Rs.1,00,000/-. 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. The FIR is delayed by about three hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The allegations are per se false. 6. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no compliance of mandatory provision of Sections 50 & 52A of the N.D.P.S. Act. The criminal history of three cases assigned to the applicant has been explained. The applicant is languishing in jail since 15.5.2025. The applicant is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ali Hasan, Istiyaq Ali Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Sarfaraj @ Bhura .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 7. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that there is recovery of Rs.1,00,000/- in addition to the contraband from the applicant which cannot be planted as it is a heavy amount of money. He has further stated that out of three cases shown against the applicant as criminal history, two cases were under the NDPS Act, as such, the applicant is a repeated offender of the said offence and he is not entitled for bail. 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, without commenting on the merits of the case, prima facie, I find it a fit case for bail. 10. Let the applicant- Sarfaraj @ Bhura, 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 pressurize/intimidate 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. 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. (Krishan Pahal,J.) September 25, 2025 Vikas Verma BAIL No. 21552 of 2025 2 Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad