HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15048 of 2026 Court No. - 69 HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J. 1. Heard Sri Sanjeev Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Manoj Gautam, 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. 19 of 2026 under Section 8/20 NDPS Act, registered at Police Station Rania, District Kanpur Dehat during pendency of the trial. 3. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that co-accused Anuj Kumar has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 27.4.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.13873 of 2026. It is further submitted that 1.70 kg and 1.60 kg of Ganja is said to have been recovered from the possession of the applicant and co-accused and on their confession, 94.8 kg of Ganja is said to have been recovered from an abandoned factory. It is further submitted that mandatory provisions of Sections 52-A of NDPS Act have not been complied with. It is further submitted that applicant has no criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 30.1.2026. It is also submitted that the applicant undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty, if granted. It has also 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 submits that commercial quantity of Ganja is said to have been recovered on pointing out of the applicant and co-accused from an abandoned factory. 5. As per the FIR, 1.70 kg and 1.60 kg of Ganja is said to have been recovered from a mopet and applicant and co-accused are said to have riding the said mopet. It is submitted that on their confession, 94.8 kg of Ganja is said to have been recovered from an abandoned factory, however, it is submitted that mandatory provisions of Sections 52-A of NDPS Act have not been complied with as samples of the recovered contraband have not been taken in accordance with Rules 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the Rules Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sanjeev Kumar Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Aryan .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) published by the Union of India in the official gazette. Applicant has no criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 30.1.2026. 6. Upon considering the totality of facts, nature and evidence reflected from record, 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 Union of India vs. Shiv Shanker Kesari, 2007 (7) SCC 798 and Nadeem Ahmad vs. State of West Bengal 2025 LawSuit (SC) 1134 (2025 INSC 993), Pankaj Bansal vs. Union of India (2024) 7 SCC 576 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 Aryan 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. (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 5, 2026 Madhurima BAIL No. 15048 of 2026 2 (Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.) Digitally signed by :- MADHURIMA GARG High Court of Judicature at Allahabad