HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 21945 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. Rejoinder affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant today is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Manish Tiwary, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Aushim Luthra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Anit Kumar Shukla, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 191 of 2025, under Section 8/20/29 of The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station- Phoolpur, District Prayagraj, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per the allegations of the FIR, 150.2 kg of ganja is said to have been recovered from the house of the applicant by the police on 14.05.2025 at about 10:23 a.m. 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 three hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. 6. Learned counsel has next stated that the complete exercise is sham as there is no compliance of mandatory provision of Section 52A of NDPS Act. Learned counsel has placed much reliance on Annexure-2 filed with the counter affidavit which is proforma no.4 as per Rule 8 of the NDPS Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ashish Tripathi, Aushim Luthra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Om Prakash Kesarwani .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) Act whereby it does not bear the signatures of the Magistrate concerned. 7. Learned counsel has further submitted that it is true that the applicant has a criminal history of two more cases assigned to the applicant but those cases were regarding the contraband below the commercial quantity. The prosecution has to stand on its legs and in the instant case, the said recovery stands falsified. The said sampling is also defective as six bags were recovered from the house of the applicant and the sample has been taken from one bag only, as such the applicant is entitled for bail. 8. The applicant is languishing in jail since 14.05.2025. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 9. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application. 10. 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. 11. 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 taking into consideration the fact that there is no compliance of Section 52A of the NDPS Act, at this stage without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail. 12. Let the applicants - Om Prakash Kesarwani, 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. 13. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground BAIL No. 21945 of 2025 2 for cancellation of bail. 14. 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 22, 2025 Sumit S BAIL No. 21945 of 2025 3 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad