2025:UHC:6110 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS BA1/980/2025 Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Karan Singh Dugtal, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Siddharth Bisth, learned A.G.A. and Ms. Meenakshi Sharma, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. Present applicant Aasif Hussain, S/o Harees Ahmad, R/o Agras, P.S. Fatehganj West, District Bareilly, U.P. is praying for regular bail in relation to FIR dated 07.02.2025, bearing FIR No. 43 of 2025 registered at P.S. Khatima District U.S. Nagar wherein two persons, namely, Mohd. Tariq and Ashu were implicated for the offences punishable under Sections 8/21/29 read with Section 60 of the NDPS Act and under Section 25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act read with Section 109 of BNS 2023. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated and is not named in the FIR, however, on disclosure of his name by the other persons who were named in the FIR, the applicant is made an accused for the offence punishable under Section 29 read with Section 8/21 of the NDPS Act. He also submits that the other co-accused who are named in the FIR, from their possession 280 gm of smack is shown to be recovered, which is commercial one. He further submits that there is no recovery from the applicant, therefore, the implication of the applicant is false. He further submits that the applicant has a previous criminal history of one case relating to NDPS Act that too for the offence punishable under section 29 of the NDPS Act. 2025:UHC:6110 5. On the other side, Mr. Bisht, learned A.G.A. with Ms. Meenakshi Sharma, learned Brief Holder seriously opposed the bail application by submitting that undisputedly applicant is made an accused of Section 29 of the NDPS Act but his name has been disclosed by the other co- accused from whose possession the alleged contraband has been recovered which is commercial one. They further submits that the applicant has a history of two cases which also pertains to the NDPS Act and submits that considering the past conduct of the applicant it reveals that the applicant is repeatedly indulge in the activities which are punishable under the NDPS Act, and, as such, the applicant does not deserve for bail. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and further taking into consideration that the applicant is a habitual offender in respect of the similar nature of offence which are punishable under the NDPS Act, this Court is of the view that the applicant does not deserve for bail. 7. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 14.07.2025 Parul 2025:UHC:6110