High Court · 2025

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that no recovery has been made from the applicant. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery from the co-accused. It is also pointed out that the officer in whose presence the alleged recovery was made has not signed the recovery memo. It is further submitted that co-accused Mohd. Irshad, from whom the alleged contraband was recovered, has already been granted bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 20.05.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 2654 of 2025. It is also submitted that case of the applicant is on better footing than that of co-accused Mohd. Irshad. Learned counsel also submits that the applicant has explained his criminal history. There is no likelihood of the applicant absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence if he is released on bail. The applicant undertakes not to misuse the liberty of bail. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer on the ground that the applicant has criminal antecedents involving seven cases, including two under the NDPS Act. However, he does not dispute that no recovery has been made from the present applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment of a coordinate Bench of this Court in Vimal Rajput vs. State of U.P., Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 3604 of 2024, particularly emphasizing paragraph 38 thereof, to contend that the restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply to Constitutional Courts. Perused the record. While examining the applicability of the twin conditions under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act, it is necessary to consider the specific circumstances of the applicant’s alleged involvement. Significantly, the applicant was not arrested from the spot of the incident, nor was any contraband recovered from him. His name has come to light solely through the confessional statement of a co-accused. Such confessional statements, although part of the investigative process, carry limited evidentiary value in the absence of independent corroboration. The evidentiary value of a co- accused’s confession is further diminished where no direct link, such as recovery or physical presence, connects the applicant to the alleged offence. It is also brought to the Court’s attention that the applicant has a prior criminal record involving two NDPS cases. However, in both instances, there was no recovery from him, and his name had similarly emerged only in the confessional statements of co-accused individuals. No independent or corroborative material has been produced to establish his link with the contraband or the alleged transactions in those cases either. Accordingly, based on a assessment of the materials on record, particularly the absence of recovery and the indirect nature of the accusations, there appear to be reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant may not be guilty of the offence. Moreover, there appears to be no substantial likelihood of the applicant engaging in any similar offence if released on bail. As such, the twin conditions contemplated under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act are deemed to have been satisfied in the present case. With the observation made herein above so also the considering the bail order of co-accused co-accused Mohd. Irshad, this Court finds it to be a fit case for granting bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant Srinath @ Vikki involved in Case Crime No.110 of 2025, under Sections 8/21/29/60 of NDPS, Act, registered at Police Station Thakurganj, 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 in accordance with law. (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 Section 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 IPC (now Section 209 of BNS). Order Date :- 10.7.2025 R.C. RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that no recovery has been made from the applicant. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery from the co-accused. It is also pointed out that the officer in whose presence the alleged recovery was made has not signed the recovery memo. It is further submitted that co-accused Mohd. Irshad, from whom the alleged contraband was recovered, has already been granted bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 20.05.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 2654 of 2025. It is also submitted that case of the applicant is on better footing than that of co-accused Mohd. Irshad. Learned counsel also submits that the applicant has explained his criminal history. There is no likelihood of the applicant absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence if he is released on bail. The applicant undertakes not to misuse the liberty of bail. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer on the ground that the applicant has criminal antecedents involving seven cases, including two under the NDPS Act. However, he does not dispute that no recovery has been made from the present applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment of a coordinate Bench of this Court in Vimal Rajput vs. State of U.P., Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 3604 of 2024, particularly emphasizing paragraph 38 thereof, to contend that the restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply to Constitutional Courts. Perused the record. While examining the applicability of the twin conditions under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act, it is necessary to consider the specific circumstances of the applicant’s alleged involvement. Significantly, the applicant was not arrested from the spot of the incident, nor was any contraband recovered from him. His name has come to light solely through the confessional statement of a co-accused. Such confessional statements, although part of the investigative process, carry limited evidentiary value in the absence of independent corroboration. The evidentiary value of a co- accused’s confession is further diminished where no direct link, such as recovery or physical presence, connects the applicant to the alleged offence. It is also brought to the Court’s attention that the applicant has a prior criminal record involving two NDPS cases. However, in both instances, there was no recovery from him, and his name had similarly emerged only in the confessional statements of co-accused individuals. No independent or corroborative material has been produced to establish his link with the contraband or the alleged transactions in those cases either. Accordingly, based on a assessment of the materials on record, particularly the absence of recovery and the indirect nature of the accusations, there appear to be reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant may not be guilty of the offence. Moreover, there appears to be no substantial likelihood of the applicant engaging in any similar offence if released on bail. As such, the twin conditions contemplated under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act are deemed to have been satisfied in the present case. With the observation made herein above so also the considering the bail order of co-accused co-accused Mohd. Irshad, this Court finds it to be a fit case for granting bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant Srinath @ Vikki involved in Case Crime No.110 of 2025, under Sections 8/21/29/60 of NDPS, Act, registered at Police Station Thakurganj, 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 in accordance with law. (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 Section 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 IPC (now Section 209 of BNS). Order Date :- 10.7.2025 R.C. RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench