HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32248 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Pankaj Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Pranshu Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 112 of 2025, under Sections 8/20/29/60 of The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station- Farah, District- Mathura, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per the allegations of the FIR, eight persons were arrested by the police and heavy amount of Ganja i.e. 140 Kg. was recovered from the Truck no.RJ11 GA7971, two cars XUV 500 no.HR51 BG 2818 and WagonR no. HR30 J 2662 on 27.3.2025 at about 10:40 p.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 about five hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The alleged recovery is false. The applicant was not arrested at the spot rather his name has come up in the confessional statement of co- accused person, which has no evidentiary value in the eyes of law. 6. It is further argued by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no compliance of mandatory provision of Section 52A of the N.D.P.S. Act and Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Pankaj Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Satendra Alias Satyaprakash .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) also there is no chemical analyst's report to corroborate that the recovered contraband is Ganja. The criminal history of one case assigned to the applicant has been explained. The applicant is languishing in jail since 2.6.2025. 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 A.G.A. 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- Satendra Alias Satyaprakash, 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 19, 2025 Vikas Verma BAIL No. 32248 of 2025 2 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad