HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14345 of 2026 Court No. - 69 HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J. 1. Heard Sri Sudhanshu Tiwari, holding brief of Sri Umesh Chandra Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri J.P. Singh, learned AGA for the State-respondents and perused the record. 2. The present bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been filed on behalf of applicant with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 105 of 2025, under Section 8/18 NDPS Act, registered at Police Station Bisauli, District Budaun, during pendency of the trial. 3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case and he has been languishing in jail since 20.3.2026. It is further submitted that as per FIR, 629 gram of opium is said to have been recovered from the possession of the applicant which is much below the commercial quantity, however, it is submitted that mandatory provisions of Section 52-A of NDPS Act have not been complied with as the samples have not been taken in accordance with the Rules 9, 10 and 11 of the Rules published by the Union of India in the official gazette and the same have not been certified by the learned Magistrate. It is also submitted that the applicant undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty, if granted. It has also Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Jay Prakash Pandey, Umesh Chandra Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Dharmendra Pal .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) been pointed out that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial. 4. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and it is submitted that mandatory provisions of Sections 50 and 52-A of NDPS Act and Section 105 BNSS have been complied with. 5. As per FIR, 629 gram of opium is said to have been recovered from the possession of the applicant which is much below the commercial quantity, however, it is submitted that mandatory provisions of Section 52-A of NDPS Act have not been complied with as the samples have not been taken in accordance with the Rules 9, 10 and 11 of the Rules published by the Union of India in the official gazette and the same have not been certified by the learned Magistrate. 6. Upon considering the totality of facts, nature and the evidence reflected from record and also taking into consideration the provision of Section 37 of the NDPS Act and in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Nadeem Ahmed vs. State of West Bengal, 2025 LawSuit (SC) 1134 (2025 INSC 993) and in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India vs. Shiv Shanker Kesari, 2007 (7) SCC 798 and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for bail. Hence, the present bail application is ALLOWED. 7. Let the applicant- Dharmendra Pal involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions :- (i) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. BAIL No. 14345 of 2026 2 (ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of B.N.S.S. (iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in the trial court. (v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. 8. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 9. It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order. May 6, 2026 Abhishek BAIL No. 14345 of 2026 3 (Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.) Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad