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

1.Heard learned counsel for applicant as well as Mr. Akhilesh Kumar Awasthi, learned counsel for NCB and perused the record. Supplementary counter afÏdavit filed today on behalf of learned counsel for NCB is taken on record.

2. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.17 of 2024, under Sections 8(c)/18/29 NDPS, registered at Police Station NCB, District Lucknow.

3. As per contents of FIR/recovery memo, incident is said to have taken place on 18.07.2024 when on information being received, an NCB team apprehended the applicant from roadways bus with illegal opium (Afim) in his possession.

4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in charges levelled against him which would be evident from the fact that despite arrest having taken place from inside a roadways bus, there is no independent witness of the alleged recovery. It is submitted that only 800 gms of opium (Afim) were recovered from the possession of applicant and is therefore below commercial quantity. It is submitted that applicant without previous criminal history is under incarceration 18.07.2024 with only complaint having been filed till date.

5. Learned counsel for NCB has opposed bail application with the submission that there is no occasion for the NCB team to falsely implicate applicant in the recovery of opium. It is submitted that although recovery has been made from a bus but the aspect of absence of any independent witness would not vitiate trial particularly in view of the fact that people are not readily available to become independent witnesses. It is admitted that applicant does not have any previous criminal history and as yet only complaint has been filed since provisions of the Act stipulate that such complaint is to be filed within a period of six months.

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 although alleged recovery has taken place in a roadways bus full of passengers but the aspect of not a single independent witness would be taken into consideration at the time of trial during evidence. Since it is admitted that applicant does not have any previous criminal history and is under incarceration since 18.07.2024 with only complaint having been filed till date. Recovery memo indicates that although 4.4. Kg opium was recovered collectively from three persons but recovery from applicant is of 800 gms which is below the commercial limit. In view of aforesaid discussion, provisions of Section 37 NDPS Act stands satisfied.

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, Umesh Kumar 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 :- 9.5.2025 Subodh/- SUBODH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1.Heard learned counsel for applicant as well as Mr. Akhilesh Kumar Awasthi, learned counsel for NCB and perused the record. Supplementary counter afÏdavit filed today on behalf of learned counsel for NCB is taken on record.

2. This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.17 of 2024, under Sections 8(c)/18/29 NDPS, registered at Police Station NCB, District Lucknow.

3. As per contents of FIR/recovery memo, incident is said to have taken place on 18.07.2024 when on information being received, an NCB team apprehended the applicant from roadways bus with illegal opium (Afim) in his possession.

4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in charges levelled against him which would be evident from the fact that despite arrest having taken place from inside a roadways bus, there is no independent witness of the alleged recovery. It is submitted that only 800 gms of opium (Afim) were recovered from the possession of applicant and is therefore below commercial quantity. It is submitted that applicant without previous criminal history is under incarceration 18.07.2024 with only complaint having been filed till date.

5. Learned counsel for NCB has opposed bail application with the submission that there is no occasion for the NCB team to falsely implicate applicant in the recovery of opium. It is submitted that although recovery has been made from a bus but the aspect of absence of any independent witness would not vitiate trial particularly in view of the fact that people are not readily available to become independent witnesses. It is admitted that applicant does not have any previous criminal history and as yet only complaint has been filed since provisions of the Act stipulate that such complaint is to be filed within a period of six months.

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 although alleged recovery has taken place in a roadways bus full of passengers but the aspect of not a single independent witness would be taken into consideration at the time of trial during evidence. Since it is admitted that applicant does not have any previous criminal history and is under incarceration since 18.07.2024 with only complaint having been filed till date. Recovery memo indicates that although 4.4. Kg opium was recovered collectively from three persons but recovery from applicant is of 800 gms which is below the commercial limit. In view of aforesaid discussion, provisions of Section 37 NDPS Act stands satisfied.

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, Umesh Kumar 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 :- 9.5.2025 Subodh/- SUBODH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench