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

2. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.0366 of 2021, under Sections 8, 21 NDPS registered at Police Station Mailani, District Lakhimpur Kheri.

3. As per contents of FIR, the incident is said to have taken place on 04.09.2021 when a police team acting on information supplied is said to have intercepted the applicant and recovered illegal narcotics being 285 Grams which is above Commercial Limit.

4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in charges levelled against him which could be evident from the fact that there is no independent witness of alleged recovery from applicant. It is submitted that a bare perusal of FIR/recovery memo will make it evident that Sections 42 and 52A NDPS Act have been violated since there is no recovery in the presence of either in Magistrate or any Gazetted ofÏcer. Sample have also allegedly been collected without the presence of any Magistrate or Gazetted OfÏcer. It is submitted that applicant is under incarceration since 04.09.2021 with evidence of only three prosecution witness having been completed with four more still remaining. It is submitted that previous criminal history of one case which does not pertain to NDPS has been explained.

5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed bail application with the submission that recovery indicates above against applicant clearly commercial quantity of illegal narcotics. It is submitted that Section 52A NDPS Act even otherwise is only procedural in nature and has been held not to be mandatory. It is however admitted that previous criminal history of applicant has been explained.

6. 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."

7. Considering submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material available on record, it appears that recovery of illegal narcotics above commercial limit has been made from the applicant on the basis of information supplied by police informant. There does not appear to any independent witness to the recovery made against the applicant. The aspect of violation of statutory provisions would be subject matter of evidence during the course of trial. However, recovery or sampling having been done in the presence of either by Magistrate or by Gazetted OfÏcer. Applicant is under incarceration since 04.09.2021 with evidence of four more prosecution witnesses remaining. Thus, there does not appear to be any early hope of conclusion of trial.

8. 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.

9. Accordingly bail application is allowed. Kailash

10. Let applicant, involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his/her 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 she/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/her counsel. In case of his/her absence, without sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against him/her 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/her 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/her, 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 sufÏcient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him/her in accordance with law. Order Date :- 5.5.2025 Subodh/- SUBODH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

2. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.0366 of 2021, under Sections 8, 21 NDPS registered at Police Station Mailani, District Lakhimpur Kheri.

3. As per contents of FIR, the incident is said to have taken place on 04.09.2021 when a police team acting on information supplied is said to have intercepted the applicant and recovered illegal narcotics being 285 Grams which is above Commercial Limit.

4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in charges levelled against him which could be evident from the fact that there is no independent witness of alleged recovery from applicant. It is submitted that a bare perusal of FIR/recovery memo will make it evident that Sections 42 and 52A NDPS Act have been violated since there is no recovery in the presence of either in Magistrate or any Gazetted ofÏcer. Sample have also allegedly been collected without the presence of any Magistrate or Gazetted OfÏcer. It is submitted that applicant is under incarceration since 04.09.2021 with evidence of only three prosecution witness having been completed with four more still remaining. It is submitted that previous criminal history of one case which does not pertain to NDPS has been explained.

5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed bail application with the submission that recovery indicates above against applicant clearly commercial quantity of illegal narcotics. It is submitted that Section 52A NDPS Act even otherwise is only procedural in nature and has been held not to be mandatory. It is however admitted that previous criminal history of applicant has been explained.

6. 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."

7. Considering submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of material available on record, it appears that recovery of illegal narcotics above commercial limit has been made from the applicant on the basis of information supplied by police informant. There does not appear to any independent witness to the recovery made against the applicant. The aspect of violation of statutory provisions would be subject matter of evidence during the course of trial. However, recovery or sampling having been done in the presence of either by Magistrate or by Gazetted OfÏcer. Applicant is under incarceration since 04.09.2021 with evidence of four more prosecution witnesses remaining. Thus, there does not appear to be any early hope of conclusion of trial.

8. 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.

9. Accordingly bail application is allowed. Kailash

10. Let applicant, involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his/her 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 she/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/her counsel. In case of his/her absence, without sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against him/her 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/her 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/her, 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 sufÏcient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him/her in accordance with law. Order Date :- 5.5.2025 Subodh/- SUBODH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench