HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 21831 of 2026 Court No. - 18 HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party. 2. The present second bail application has been filed by the applicant under Section 483 BNSS to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 16 of 2026, under Sections 8/20 of the NDPS Act, Police Station- Ratanpuri, District- Muzaffar Nagar. The first bail application was rejected vide order dated 08.04.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 10033 of 2026. 3. Learned counsel for the accused-applicant, while pressing the bail application, submits that, the accused-applicant has falsely been implicated in this case and he has not committed any offence, as alleged by the prosecution. He further submits that, 20.870 Kg Ganja is alleged to have been recovered from the possession of the applicant in the first information report of this case. In fact, no such recovery was effected from the applicant. It is further submitted that, since such recovery is not supported by independent witness, possibility of his false implication in the crime, cannot be ruled out and it is also submitted that, while the seizure was conducted, the concerned authorities did not follow the procedure prescribed in the act and the said seizure is a sham exercise in the absence of the procedure, as prescribed under the act and the law settled on the subject, therefore, the arrest of the applicant/accused becomes illegal. It is further submitted that, nothing has been recovered Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ashutosh Ganguli, Masoom Alam, Sushil Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Usman .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) from the personal possession of the applicant. The only ground on which the applicant is seeking enlargement on bail through this application is that charge in this case has been framed. He further submitted that there is no public eye witness of the alleged recovery. He submits that there is non-compliance of Section 50 of N.D.P.S. Act and in support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the Judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Arif Khan @ Agha Khan vs. State of Uttarakhand, (2018) 18 SCC 380, wherein it has been held that mandatory procedure of Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act has to be complied with in regard to search and recovery. He is languishing in jail since 02.02.2026 and criminal history of three cases has been explained in para 32 of the instant bail application and in two out of the three cases, the applicant is bailed out and there is no apprehension that, after being released on bail, he may flee from the course of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty. Learned counsel for the applicant accused submitted that, there is change in the circumstances, as much as the charge has been framed and trial has commenced in the case and two prosecution witnesses have been examined. 4. Per contra, learned AGA appearing on behalf of State submits that, the quantity of Ganja, which has been recovered from the possession of the accused-applicant is 20.870 Kg, above the commercial quantity. The concerned officials have followed due procedure of law, while seizing the Ganja and arresting the accused. He further submits that, innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, who is involved in supplying contraband, therefore, the applicant does not deserve any indulgence. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will again indulge in similar activity. Moreover, he has not been granted bail in the present case. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of record, it is evident that recovered contraband substance, i.e. 20.870 kg. Ganja is slightly above the commercial quantity; there is no independent public eye witness of the alleged recovery; there is non compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act; the criminal history of the applicant has been explained in para 32 of the bail application; and the applicant is languishing in jail since 02.02.2026. BAIL No. 21831 of 2026 2 6. Considering the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, this Court finds it to be a case of bail. 7. Let the applicant Usman involved in the aforementioned crime 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, with the following conditions:- i. The applicant will continue to attend and co-operate in the trial pending before the court concerned on the date fixed after release. ii. He will not tamper with the witnesses. iii. He will not indulge in any illegal activities during the bail period. 8. It is further directed that the identity, status and residence proof of the sureties be verified by the authorities concerned before they are accepted. 9. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the trial court will be at liberty to cancel the bail. September 25, 2026 Prashant D. BAIL No. 21831 of 2026 3 (Harvir Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- PRASHANT DWIVEDI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad