HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 21723 of 2025 AND CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 23320 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. Since both the cases arise out of same case crime, they are being decided by this common order. 2. Rejoinder affidavits filed by learned counsel for the applicant in both the cases are taken on record. 3. Heard Sri Avinash Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Ashutosh Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 4. Applicants seek bail in Case Crime No.141 of 2025, under Section 8/20 of The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station- Kairana, District- Shamli, during the pendency of trial. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Avinash Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Avinash Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Sarfaraz Aalam .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) Ranjan Kumar Alias Aryan .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 5. As per the allegations of the FIR, the applicants are said to have been apprehended by the police on 18.3.2025 and 1.846 Kg. Charas is said to have been recovered from their possession. 6. Learned counsel for the applicants has argued that the applicants are absolutely innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and to victimize them. They have nothing to do with the said offence. The said recovery is false as no grounds of arrest were mentioned in the arrest memo and the applicants were not informed of any grounds whatsoever. In support of his submission, learned counsel has placed much reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court passed in Vihaan Kumar vs. State of Harayana & Anr., 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 283. 7. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicants that there is no compliance of mandatory provision of Section 52A of the N.D.P.S. Act either. There is no criminal history of the applicants. The applicants are languishing in jail since 18.3.2025. The applicants are ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicants are released on bail, they will not misuse the liberty of bail. 8. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the chemical analyst's report indicates that the recovered contraband is Charas. As such, the applicants are not entitled for bail. 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 and also in the light of judgment of the Supreme Court in Vihaan Kumar (supra), without commenting on the merits of the case, prima facie, I find it a fit case for bail. 10. Let the applicants- Sarfaraz Aalam and Ranjan Kumar Alias Aryan, who are involved in aforementioned case be released on bail on their 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 applicants shall not tamper with evidence during trial. (ii) The applicants shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses. BAIL No. 21723 of 2025 2 (iii) The applicants 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 applicants shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. September 22, 2025 Vikas Verma BAIL No. 21723 of 2025 3 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad