HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12233 of 2026 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri N.K. Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 49 of 2026, under Section 8/18 N.D.P.S. Act 1985, Police Station- Dataganj, District- Budaun during pendency of the trial. 3. Counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. False recovery of 500 gm. 'Opium' has been shown from the possession of the applicant. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. The recovered substance is below the commercial quantity. The mandatory provisions of Section 42, 50, 51 and 52-A of N.D.P.S. have not been complied with. There is no F.S.L. report to establish that the substance recovered is 'Opium'. It is next contended that the co- accused Prashant Gupta has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 7.4.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.11590 of 2026 (Prashant Gupta Vs. State of U.P.). The applicant claims parity. The applicant is in jail since 27.2.2026 having no criminal history. In case, he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty. 4. Learned AGA for the State has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, this Court prima facie finds that there is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. The recovered substance is below the commercial Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Jitendra Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Harshit Gupta .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) quantity. The mandatory provisions of N.D.P.S. Act have not been complied. There is no F.S.L. report to establish that the substance recovered is 'Opium'. The co-accused Prashant Gupta has been granted bail by this Court. Moreover, the applicant has remained confined for almost three months and after submission of the charge-sheet there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, and no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the evidence or delay the trial or intimidate the witness, therefore, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. 6. Let the applicant, Harshit Gupta involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned on the following conditions that: i. the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; ii. the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witness; iii. the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court. 7. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. April 20, 2026 S.S. BAIL No. 12233 of 2026 2 (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHARTH SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad