HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 23543 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State is taken on record. 3. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant does not propose to file rejoinder affidavit to the counter affidavit filed by the State. 4. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Prem Narayan Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 5. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 138 of 2025, under Sections 8/18 of the NDPS Act, Police Station-Handiya, District-Prayagraj, during the pendency of trial. 6. As per the allegations of the FIR, a total of 1736 plants including 2193 fruits of Opium weighing in total 185 Kg 470 Gm is stated to have been recovered from the applicant and his son by police on 17.03.2025. 7. 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. It is further argued that the said land in question does not belong to the applicant and the actual owner of the land is Devendra Kumar Singh and there is nothing on record to suggest that it was the applicant who had taken the said land on rent. A case of NDPS Act has been foisted on the applicant out of political rivalry. The applicant is languishing in jail since 19.03.2025. The applicant Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Prem Narayan Singh, Sunil Kumar Yadav, Uttam Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Hausala Prasad Patel .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) is ready to cooperate with trial. 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 on the ground that the recovery of the contraband article is of commercial quantity. 9. The Supreme Court in the Case of Union of India vs. Shiv Shankar Keshari, (2007) 7 SCC 798 has held that the court while considering the application for bail with reference to Section 37 of the Act is not called upon to record a finding of not guilty. It is for the limited purpose essentially confined to the question of releasing the accused on bail that the court is called upon to see if there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and records its satisfaction about the existence of such grounds. But the court has not to consider the matter as if it is pronouncing a judgment of acquittal and recording a finding of not guilty. 10. Considering the facts of the case and keeping in mind, the ratio of the Supreme Court's judgment in the case of Union of India vs. Shiv Shankar Keshari (supra) larger mandate of Article 21 of the constitution of India, the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused-applicant, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interest of the public/ State and other circumstances, but without expressing any opinion on the merits, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. 11. Let the applicant- Hausala Prasad Patel, 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. 12. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. BAIL No. 23543 of 2025 2 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 19, 2025 Karan BAIL No. 23543 of 2025 3 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- KARAN KUMAR RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad