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.437 of 2024, under Sections 8/21(c)/29 of NDPS Act, registered at Police Station Zaidpur, District Barabanki.

3. As per contents of FIR, incident is said to have taken place on 19.12.2024 but the applicant was allegedly apprehended by a police team acting upon information supply. Recovery of 1060 kg smack having been recovered from his possession.

4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in allegations levelled against him which would be evident from the fact that there is no independent witness of the alleged recovery. It is submitted that although the recovery memo indicates that the Circle OfÏcer being a Gazetted OfÏcer was present to show compliance of provisions of 50 and 52A NDPS Act but the said person is neither mentioned in the recovery memo nor is a witness of charge-sheet. It is submitted that relevant portion of copy of case diary has been brought on record by means of supplementary afÏdavit today clearly indicating the fact that the said Circle ofÏcer is not a witness in the charge-sheet. It is therefore submitted that the aspect of compliance of Sections 50 and 52A NDPS Act cannot be substantiated during trial. The violation of which has been alleged.

5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed the bail application with the submission that neither Section 50 nor Section 52 A of NDPS Act requires the Gazetted OfÏcer to be a witness in the charge- sheet. It is submitted that allegations levelled against applicant are clearly made out. 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 there is no independent witness of the alleged recovery from the applicant. The aspect of Gazetted OfÏcer not being named either in the recovery memo or even as a witness in the charge-sheet to substantiate adherence to Sections 50 and 52A NDPS Act would be subject matter of trial during the course of evidence. Applicant is under incarceration since 20.12.2024 with previous criminal history explained.

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.

10. Let applicant, Mohd. Parvez 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 :- 8.5.2025 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.437 of 2024, under Sections 8/21(c)/29 of NDPS Act, registered at Police Station Zaidpur, District Barabanki.

3. As per contents of FIR, incident is said to have taken place on 19.12.2024 but the applicant was allegedly apprehended by a police team acting upon information supply. Recovery of 1060 kg smack having been recovered from his possession.

4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in allegations levelled against him which would be evident from the fact that there is no independent witness of the alleged recovery. It is submitted that although the recovery memo indicates that the Circle OfÏcer being a Gazetted OfÏcer was present to show compliance of provisions of 50 and 52A NDPS Act but the said person is neither mentioned in the recovery memo nor is a witness of charge-sheet. It is submitted that relevant portion of copy of case diary has been brought on record by means of supplementary afÏdavit today clearly indicating the fact that the said Circle ofÏcer is not a witness in the charge-sheet. It is therefore submitted that the aspect of compliance of Sections 50 and 52A NDPS Act cannot be substantiated during trial. The violation of which has been alleged.

5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State has opposed the bail application with the submission that neither Section 50 nor Section 52 A of NDPS Act requires the Gazetted OfÏcer to be a witness in the charge- sheet. It is submitted that allegations levelled against applicant are clearly made out. 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 there is no independent witness of the alleged recovery from the applicant. The aspect of Gazetted OfÏcer not being named either in the recovery memo or even as a witness in the charge-sheet to substantiate adherence to Sections 50 and 52A NDPS Act would be subject matter of trial during the course of evidence. Applicant is under incarceration since 20.12.2024 with previous criminal history explained.

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.

10. Let applicant, Mohd. Parvez 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 :- 8.5.2025 Subodh/- SUBODH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench