HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29900 of 2026 Court No. - 68 (Sl. No. 177 out of 185) HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Sheshadri Trivedi, learned Advocate holding brief for Sri Jainendra Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri D.K. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 89 of 2025, under Sections 8/20/27a/29/60 of NDPS Act, Police Station Myorpur, District Sonbhadra, during the pendency of trial. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He is not named in the FIR. His name has come up in the confessional statement of the co-accused person, which has no evidentiary value in the eyes of law. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that in all, two cases were foisted on the applicant by police at a go, just to show good work. One case under U.P. Gangsters Act has also been foisted on him. The said criminal history stands explained. The applicant is languishing in jail since 18.7.2026 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 6. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application but the Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Jainendra Kumar Pandey, Vipin Chandra Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Rajesh Sonkar .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant could not be disputed. 7. This Court is of the view that if a case for bail is otherwise made out, an accused cannot be kept incarcerated solely on account of his criminal antecedents. In the instant case, the criminal history assigned to the applicant has been properly explained. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the fact that name of applicant has come up in the confessional statement of the co-accused person, which has no evidentiary value in the eyes of law and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, prima-facie the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed. 9. Let the applicant- Rajesh Sonkar, who is involved in aforementioned case 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 subject to verification of sureties, with the condition that he shall not tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses and shall appear before the trial court as required. 10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 11. 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 8, 2026 Shalini BAIL No. 29900 of 2026 2 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHALINI JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad