High Court · 2025

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

2. Instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 336 of 2023, under Section 8/20 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,1985 and section 3/25 of the Arms Act, P.S.-Baundi, District-Bahraich.

3. As per prosecution version, the contraband substance, i.e. 1 K.G. and 104 grams of 'Charas', is said to be recovered from the possession of the applicant.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been planted by the police in the instant matter. He next added that 1 K.G. and 104 grams of 'Charas' is said to be recovered from the possession of the present applicant, which is above the commercial quantity, but, there is no independent public eye witness of the alleged recovery. He submits that the applicant has taken specific plea that there is non compliance of section 52-A of the N.D.P.S. Act, but, the same has not been specifically replied by the State in it's Counter Affidavit. He added that admittedly, the samples were taken on 13-09-2023,whereas the same were received to the F.S.L. on 08-11-2023 and no explanation is given that for a period of about two months, where the samples were kept. He next added that the Rule 13 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances(Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022, (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules, 2022'), provides that after the recovery of the samples, the same shall be sent immediately to the F.S.L., but, in the instant matter, the samples were sent after two months and therefore, the proceedings are in contravention to the Rule, 2013 of the Rules, 2022 and thus, the whole proceedings vitiate in the eyes of law. He submits that the applicant has explained criminal history in paragraph no. 37 of the bail application and he is languishing in jail since 14-09- 2023 and there is no possibility that the trial would be concluded in near future and the case of the present applicant is also squarely covered with ratio of Judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Manish Sisodia vs Directorate of Enforcement in SLP (Criminal) No. 8781 of 2024 decided on 9 August, 2024 and Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb (2021(3) SCC 713). Further submitted that the applicant has undertaken that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of bail and submits that applicant was involved in committing the aforesaid offence as contraband substance i.e. 'Charas', has been recovered from his possession and, as such, he is not entitled to be released on bail, but, he could not dispute the fact that why the samples were sent with inordinate delay of two months Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of record, it is evident that recovered contraband substance, i.e. 1 K.G. and 104 grams of 'Charas';there is no independent public eye witness of the alleged recovery; there is non compliance of Rule 13 of the Rules,2022; criminal history of the applicant has been explained and he is languishing in jail since 14.09.2023 and the applicant has undertaken that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings. F.S.L.

6. Considering the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a case of bail.

7. Let the applicant, Naseem @ Bhurri, involved in the aforementioned crime 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:- (1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial; (2) 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. He 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 of the Indian Penal Code; (3) 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.; and (4) 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. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

8. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

10. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case. Order Date :- 17.4.2025 Satish SATISH KUMAR BHARATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

2. Instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 336 of 2023, under Section 8/20 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,1985 and section 3/25 of the Arms Act, P.S.-Baundi, District-Bahraich.

3. As per prosecution version, the contraband substance, i.e. 1 K.G. and 104 grams of 'Charas', is said to be recovered from the possession of the applicant.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been planted by the police in the instant matter. He next added that 1 K.G. and 104 grams of 'Charas' is said to be recovered from the possession of the present applicant, which is above the commercial quantity, but, there is no independent public eye witness of the alleged recovery. He submits that the applicant has taken specific plea that there is non compliance of section 52-A of the N.D.P.S. Act, but, the same has not been specifically replied by the State in it's Counter Affidavit. He added that admittedly, the samples were taken on 13-09-2023,whereas the same were received to the F.S.L. on 08-11-2023 and no explanation is given that for a period of about two months, where the samples were kept. He next added that the Rule 13 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances(Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022, (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules, 2022'), provides that after the recovery of the samples, the same shall be sent immediately to the F.S.L., but, in the instant matter, the samples were sent after two months and therefore, the proceedings are in contravention to the Rule, 2013 of the Rules, 2022 and thus, the whole proceedings vitiate in the eyes of law. He submits that the applicant has explained criminal history in paragraph no. 37 of the bail application and he is languishing in jail since 14-09- 2023 and there is no possibility that the trial would be concluded in near future and the case of the present applicant is also squarely covered with ratio of Judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Manish Sisodia vs Directorate of Enforcement in SLP (Criminal) No. 8781 of 2024 decided on 9 August, 2024 and Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb (2021(3) SCC 713). Further submitted that the applicant has undertaken that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of bail and submits that applicant was involved in committing the aforesaid offence as contraband substance i.e. 'Charas', has been recovered from his possession and, as such, he is not entitled to be released on bail, but, he could not dispute the fact that why the samples were sent with inordinate delay of two months Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of record, it is evident that recovered contraband substance, i.e. 1 K.G. and 104 grams of 'Charas';there is no independent public eye witness of the alleged recovery; there is non compliance of Rule 13 of the Rules,2022; criminal history of the applicant has been explained and he is languishing in jail since 14.09.2023 and the applicant has undertaken that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings. F.S.L.

6. Considering the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a case of bail.

7. Let the applicant, Naseem @ Bhurri, involved in the aforementioned crime 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:- (1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial; (2) 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. He 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 of the Indian Penal Code; (3) 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.; and (4) 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. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

8. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

10. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case. Order Date :- 17.4.2025 Satish SATISH KUMAR BHARATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench