Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in

2. This second bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.183 of 2021, under Section 8/20 NDPS. Act registered at Police Station Rupaideeha, District Bahraich first bail application No.3036 of 2023 having been rejected on the ground that he did not comply with Rule 9 of Allahabad High Court (Amendment) Rules, 2021 regarding proof of identity of deponent while granting liberty to file afresh.

3. It appears from a perusal of memo of affidavit filed in support of bail application that now Rule 9 of the Rules of 2021 have been complied with.

4. As per contents of FIR, the incident is said to have taken place on 15.06.2021 when a Police and S.S.B team intercepted the applicant when he was entering India from Nepal and allegedly recovered 6 Kg. Charas from his possession.

5. Learned counsel for applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him and that there is no independent witness of alleged recovery made from the applicant. It is submitted that the statement of S.S.B. team and the Police team are clearly contradictory with regard to amount of narcotics recovered from the applicant. Learned counsel has also challenged the aspect of sampling to submit that the same clearly indicates that recovery was not made from applicant. Applicant is under incarceration since 15.06.2021 without any previous criminal history and as yet only one prosecution witness has been examined whereas as per charge-sheet there are 11 witnesses and therefore there is no hope of early conclusion of trial. Provisions of Section 50 of NDPS Act have also not been complied with.

6. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed the bail application with the submission that contents of FIR clearly indicate recovery of illegal narcotics from possession of applicant.

7. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 has specifically held that bail is to be a norm and an under-trial is not required to be in jail for ever pending trial. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment are as under :- "21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty." "27. This Court, time and again, has stated that bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. It has also observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution."

8. Considering submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material available on record, it appears that there is no independent witness of alleged recovery of illegal narcotics from the possession applicant. The aspect of compliance or otherwise of Section 50 NDPS Act would be subject matter of evidence. The applicant has already under incarceration since 15.06.2021 with trial having not yet concluded. It is admitted that there is no previous criminal history of applicant.

9. Looking to the nature of allegations levelled against the applicant and submission made in the bail application, without expressing any opinion on the merits of case and considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, particularly since no reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses has been alleged, prima facie, this Court finds, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

10. Accordingly bail application is allowed.

11. Let applicant, Saleem Darji, involved in the aforesaid 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 with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) 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 court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iv) 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 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court, absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. Order Date :- 4.4.2025 Subodh/-

2. This second bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.183 of 2021, under Section 8/20 NDPS. Act registered at Police Station Rupaideeha, District Bahraich first bail application No.3036 of 2023 having been rejected on the ground that he did not comply with Rule 9 of Allahabad High Court (Amendment) Rules, 2021 regarding proof of identity of deponent while granting liberty to file afresh.

3. It appears from a perusal of memo of affidavit filed in support of bail application that now Rule 9 of the Rules of 2021 have been complied with.

4. As per contents of FIR, the incident is said to have taken place on 15.06.2021 when a Police and S.S.B team intercepted the applicant when he was entering India from Nepal and allegedly recovered 6 Kg. Charas from his possession.

5. Learned counsel for applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him and that there is no independent witness of alleged recovery made from the applicant. It is submitted that the statement of S.S.B. team and the Police team are clearly contradictory with regard to amount of narcotics recovered from the applicant. Learned counsel has also challenged the aspect of sampling to submit that the same clearly indicates that recovery was not made from applicant. Applicant is under incarceration since 15.06.2021 without any previous criminal history and as yet only one prosecution witness has been examined whereas as per charge-sheet there are 11 witnesses and therefore there is no hope of early conclusion of trial. Provisions of Section 50 of NDPS Act have also not been complied with.

6. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed the bail application with the submission that contents of FIR clearly indicate recovery of illegal narcotics from possession of applicant.

7. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 has specifically held that bail is to be a norm and an under-trial is not required to be in jail for ever pending trial. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment are as under :- "21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty." "27. This Court, time and again, has stated that bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. It has also observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution."

8. Considering submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material available on record, it appears that there is no independent witness of alleged recovery of illegal narcotics from the possession applicant. The aspect of compliance or otherwise of Section 50 NDPS Act would be subject matter of evidence. The applicant has already under incarceration since 15.06.2021 with trial having not yet concluded. It is admitted that there is no previous criminal history of applicant.

9. Looking to the nature of allegations levelled against the applicant and submission made in the bail application, without expressing any opinion on the merits of case and considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, particularly since no reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses has been alleged, prima facie, this Court finds, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

10. Accordingly bail application is allowed.

11. Let applicant, Saleem Darji, involved in the aforesaid 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 with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) 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 court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iv) 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 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court, absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. Order Date :- 4.4.2025 Subodh/-