HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31428 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Ms. Mary Puncha (Sheeb Jose) and Sri Mohd. Kalim, learned counsels for the applicant, Sri R.P. Patel, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 130 of 2025, under Section 8/20 of The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and 3/25 Arms Act, Police Station- Madhotanda, District- Pilibhit, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per the allegations of the FIR, 1 Kg. and 20 gram of Charas is said to have been recovered from the possession of the applicant by the police in a police party firing, whereby one country-made pistol was also recovered from him on 17.5.2025 at 03:05 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 allegations are per se false and the recovery has been falsely foisted on the applicant. The weight of the contraband has been inflated just to make it fall within commercial quantity. 6. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no compliance of mandatory provision of Section 52-A of the N.D.P.S. Act and also there is no chemical analyst's report to corroborate that the recovered Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mary Puncha (Sheeb Jose), Mohd. Kalim Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Satnam Singh .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) contraband is Charas. The criminal history one one case assigned to the applicant has been explained. The applicant is languishing in jail since 17.5.2025. The applicant is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 7. Learned State Law Officer has vehemently opposed the bail application. 8. The Supreme Court in Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2020 (11) SCC 648 has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail, if otherwise his case of bail is made out. 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, without commenting on the merits of the case, prima facie, I find it a fit case for bail. 10. Let the applicant- Satnam Singh, 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. 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. September 15, 2025 Vikas Verma BAIL No. 31428 of 2025 2 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad