State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. vs Party(s)

and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that the applicant has no previous criminal history. The search was not conducted in the presence of any Gazetted Officer. The alleged Gazetted Officer, namely Beenu Singh, in whose presence the search is stated to have been carried out, is neither a signatory to the recovery memo nor cited as a witness in the charge sheet. It is further submitted that no recovery was made from the personal search of the applicant and that there is no independent witness to 2 BAIL No. 2863 of 2025 the alleged recovery.

4. Learned counsel further submits that the mandatory procedure prescribed under Notification Nos. 1/88 and 1/89 regarding the drawing of samples and their dispatch to the Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical examination has not been followed. The sample was sent to the laboratory after an unexplained delay of 18 days.

5. It is next contended that other mandatory provisions under Sections 42, 50, 52, and 57 of the N.D.P.S. Act have also not been complied with. The applicant is in custody since 19.02.2025 and has no previous criminal history. 5A. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the co-accused Raj Singh who was assigned the similar role has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 27.10.2025 passed in criminal misc. bail application No. 3053 of 2025. Learned counsel for the applicant seeks parity with the order of the co-accused.

6. It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away from judicial custody or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

7. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant. He submits that the recovery of alleged contraband is of commercial quantity and the applicant is not liable to be enlarged on bail.

8. On due consideration to the manner in which the alleged recovery has been made, as well as the sampling procedure adopted by the prosecution, and taking note of the fact that the recovery was effected from the bushes and not from the personal possession of any of the accused persons; co- accused Raj Singh has been granted bail; the applicant has no criminal antecedents; the charge sheet has already been filed; and the alleged Gazetted Officer is neither a signatory to the recovery memo nor cited as a witness in the charge sheet, coupled with the fact that the applicant has been languishing in jail since 19.02.2025, and considering that the twin conditions contemplated under Section 37(1)(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act appear to be 3 BAIL No. 2863 of 2025 satisfied, inasmuch as there is no likelihood of the applicant committing a similar offence in future and he has no previous criminal history, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court finds it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail on the ground of parity.

9. Accordingly the application is allowed on the ground of parity.

10. Let the applicant Deepanshu Singh involved in Case Crime No.29 of 2025 under Section 8/20 NDPS Act, Police Station Gomti Nagar Vistar, District Lucknow 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 will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii) 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. (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 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. (v) 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 I.P.C. (now 269 BNS) (vi) 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. (now 84 BNSS) 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 I.P.C. (now 209 4 BAIL No. 2863 of 2025 BNS).

11. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are confined to the present bail application and shall have no bearing on the merits of the trial. November 7, 2025 R.C. (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that the applicant has no previous criminal history. The search was not conducted in the presence of any Gazetted Officer. The alleged Gazetted Officer, namely Beenu Singh, in whose presence the search is stated to have been carried out, is neither a signatory to the recovery memo nor cited as a witness in the charge sheet. It is further submitted that no recovery was made from the personal search of the applicant and that there is no independent witness to 2 BAIL No. 2863 of 2025 the alleged recovery.

4. Learned counsel further submits that the mandatory procedure prescribed under Notification Nos. 1/88 and 1/89 regarding the drawing of samples and their dispatch to the Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical examination has not been followed. The sample was sent to the laboratory after an unexplained delay of 18 days.

5. It is next contended that other mandatory provisions under Sections 42, 50, 52, and 57 of the N.D.P.S. Act have also not been complied with. The applicant is in custody since 19.02.2025 and has no previous criminal history. 5A. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the co-accused Raj Singh who was assigned the similar role has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 27.10.2025 passed in criminal misc. bail application No. 3053 of 2025. Learned counsel for the applicant seeks parity with the order of the co-accused.

6. It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away from judicial custody or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

7. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant. He submits that the recovery of alleged contraband is of commercial quantity and the applicant is not liable to be enlarged on bail.

8. On due consideration to the manner in which the alleged recovery has been made, as well as the sampling procedure adopted by the prosecution, and taking note of the fact that the recovery was effected from the bushes and not from the personal possession of any of the accused persons; co- accused Raj Singh has been granted bail; the applicant has no criminal antecedents; the charge sheet has already been filed; and the alleged Gazetted Officer is neither a signatory to the recovery memo nor cited as a witness in the charge sheet, coupled with the fact that the applicant has been languishing in jail since 19.02.2025, and considering that the twin conditions contemplated under Section 37(1)(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act appear to be 3 BAIL No. 2863 of 2025 satisfied, inasmuch as there is no likelihood of the applicant committing a similar offence in future and he has no previous criminal history, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court finds it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail on the ground of parity.

9. Accordingly the application is allowed on the ground of parity.

10. Let the applicant Deepanshu Singh involved in Case Crime No.29 of 2025 under Section 8/20 NDPS Act, Police Station Gomti Nagar Vistar, District Lucknow 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 will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii) 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. (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 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. (v) 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 I.P.C. (now 269 BNS) (vi) 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. (now 84 BNSS) 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 I.P.C. (now 209 4 BAIL No. 2863 of 2025 BNS).

11. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are confined to the present bail application and shall have no bearing on the merits of the trial. November 7, 2025 R.C. (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench