Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:121920 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 21814 of 2025 Applicant :- Ghanshyam @ Golu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vivek Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Vivek Kumar Singh, 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. 496 of 2025, under Section 8/20 of The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station- Kotwali Nagar, District Banda, 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 29.05.2025 and 2 kg 25 grams of ganja is said to have been recovered from his possession. 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 Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act. It is next stated that the recovered contraband is below the commercial quantity. 6. The criminal history of one case assigned to the applicant has been explained. The applicant is languishing in jail since 30.05.2025. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 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. 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. 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 without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it a fit case for bail. 10. Let the applicant- Ghanshyam @ Golu, 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. 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