HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29953 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Mrityunjay Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Deepak Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.26 of 2025, under Section 8/20/29/60 of The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station- Akarabad, District- Aligarh, during the pendency of trial. 4. 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 applicant was apprehended with 01 kg. 30 gram of Ganja in another Case Crime No.610 of 2025 registered at Police Station Quarsi, District Aligarh and he has been subsequently implicated in the instant case. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the name of applicant in the instant case has come up in the confessional statement of co- accused person and the applicant is stated to have run away from the place of occurrence. The said confessional statement has no 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 50 & 52A of the N.D.P.S. Act and also there is no chemical analyst's report to corroborate that the Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mrityunjay Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Rajendra Urav .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) recovered contraband is Ganja. There is no previous criminal history of the applicant except the said case. The applicant is languishing in jail since 19.7.2025. 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- Rajendra Urav, 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 16, 2025 Vikas Verma BAIL No. 29953 of 2025 2 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad