HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25805 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 430 of 2025, under Section 8/20/25 of The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station- Kotwali City, District Bijnor, during the pendency of trial. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is stated to be the servant of co-accused person Keshav Dubey and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He was being paid salary of Rs.9,000/- per month by the said co-accused person Keshav Dubey, who wrongly got the case foisted on the applicant by showing him to be his tenant. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that it is true that the recovered contraband is of commercial quantity, but the applicant has nothing to do with the said offence. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 17.05.2025. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 6. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the recovery of the contraband article is of commercial quantity. 7. The Apex 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 Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Manoj Kumar Tripathi, Vinod Kumar Tirpathi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Harsh Verma .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) judgment of acquittal and recording a finding of not guilty. 8. Considering the facts of the case and keeping in mind, the ratio of the Apex 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. The bail application is allowed. 9. Let the applicant- Harsh Verma, 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 pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed. 10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 11. 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. (Krishan Pahal,J.) September 10, 2025 (Ravi Kant) BAIL No. 25805 of 2025 2 Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad