HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30785 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. 3. Heard Sri Mohammed Aslam, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sushil Kumar Shukla, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material placed on record. 4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.86 of 2025, under Section 8/29 of The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station- Mirzapur, District Saharanpur, during the pendency of trial. 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 applicant was not arrested at the spot. He is stated to have run away from the place of occurrence. 25 grams of Smack is stated to have been recovered from the arrested person. There is no compliance of mandatory provision of Sections 50 and 52A of the N.D.P.S. Act. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the criminal history of three cases assigned to the applicant stands explained. The applicant is languishing in jail since 11.07.2025. 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. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mohammed Shadan, Mohd. Aslam Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Sadik .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 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 for bail is made out. 9. In Arif Khan @ Agha Khan v. State of Uttarakhand (2018) 18 SCC 380, in which the Apex Court held that Section 50 of the NDPS Act mandatorily required search of the suspect/accused to be carried out in the presence of a magistrate or Gazetted officer, even if such a suspect/accused had waived the right to be taken to a magistrate or Gazetted Officer. 10. 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, at this stage without commenting on the merits of the case, prima facie, I find it a fit case for bail. The bail application is allowed. 11. Let the applicant- Sadik, 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. 12. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 13. 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 17, 2025 (Ravi Kant) BAIL No. 30785 of 2025 2 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad