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

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that three persons namely Ram Sahai, Pramod Rawat and Basant Yadav, who were apprehended on the spot, have been granted bail in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 925 of 2025, Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 2453 of 2025 and Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 2604 of 2025 vide orders dated 03.07.2025, 24.03.2025 and 27.03.2025 respectively, the bail orders are annexed collectively as Annexure No. 2 to the bail application. The other accused persons who could not be arrested on the spot have also been granted bail. Only on the basis of the statement of the wife of the truck owner, the applicant has been implicated in the present case. In order to save her husband, the wife of the truck owner got prepared forged power of attorney dated 06.04.2024 and on that basis, the statement has been recorded wherein it is stated that through that power of attorney, on 06.04.2024, the applicant purchased the truck of co-accused Raj Kumar. Except for this statement, there is no other material against the applicant. The applicant has criminal history of 6 cases, which has been explained in paragraph- 27 of the bail application and he is languishing in jail since 08.10.2025.

4. It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

5. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that the 2 BAIL No. 10837 of 2025 applicant has criminal history of 6 cases. Replying to that, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that he has explained the same in paragraph- 27 of the bail application and out of those 6 cases, four cases are of N.D.P.S Act and two cases are of I.P.C. Out of those four cases of N.D.P.S Act, in two cases, the applicant has been acquitted and in rest of the two cases, the applicant has been enlarged on bail and the implication of the applicant in the present case has been done only on the basis of the confessional statement of wife of co-accused.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and also considering the nature of allegations, arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the bail orders of the co-accused person who have been arrested from the spot, the statement of the wife of the co-accused Raj Kumar; the fact that co-accused Raj Kumar, who was shown to be the owner of the truck is still not arrested, as also the period for which the applicant is in jail i.e. since 08.10.2025; as also the fact that the applicant has explained criminal history of 6 cases in paragraph-27 of the bail application, prima facie, it appears that the applicant did not have any conscious knowledge about the transportation of the alleged article, the twin conditions as contemplated under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act stand fulfilled and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

8. Let the applicant Rohtash @ Fauji, involved in Case Crime/FIR No. 459 of 2024, Under Sections- 8A(c)/15(c)/25/29 of N.D.P.S Act, Police Station- Gosainganj, 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 3 BAIL No. 10837 of 2025 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).

9. 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 11, 2025 DiVYa (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) DIVYA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that three persons namely Ram Sahai, Pramod Rawat and Basant Yadav, who were apprehended on the spot, have been granted bail in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 925 of 2025, Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 2453 of 2025 and Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 2604 of 2025 vide orders dated 03.07.2025, 24.03.2025 and 27.03.2025 respectively, the bail orders are annexed collectively as Annexure No. 2 to the bail application. The other accused persons who could not be arrested on the spot have also been granted bail. Only on the basis of the statement of the wife of the truck owner, the applicant has been implicated in the present case. In order to save her husband, the wife of the truck owner got prepared forged power of attorney dated 06.04.2024 and on that basis, the statement has been recorded wherein it is stated that through that power of attorney, on 06.04.2024, the applicant purchased the truck of co-accused Raj Kumar. Except for this statement, there is no other material against the applicant. The applicant has criminal history of 6 cases, which has been explained in paragraph- 27 of the bail application and he is languishing in jail since 08.10.2025.

4. It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

5. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that the 2 BAIL No. 10837 of 2025 applicant has criminal history of 6 cases. Replying to that, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that he has explained the same in paragraph- 27 of the bail application and out of those 6 cases, four cases are of N.D.P.S Act and two cases are of I.P.C. Out of those four cases of N.D.P.S Act, in two cases, the applicant has been acquitted and in rest of the two cases, the applicant has been enlarged on bail and the implication of the applicant in the present case has been done only on the basis of the confessional statement of wife of co-accused.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and also considering the nature of allegations, arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the bail orders of the co-accused person who have been arrested from the spot, the statement of the wife of the co-accused Raj Kumar; the fact that co-accused Raj Kumar, who was shown to be the owner of the truck is still not arrested, as also the period for which the applicant is in jail i.e. since 08.10.2025; as also the fact that the applicant has explained criminal history of 6 cases in paragraph-27 of the bail application, prima facie, it appears that the applicant did not have any conscious knowledge about the transportation of the alleged article, the twin conditions as contemplated under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act stand fulfilled and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

8. Let the applicant Rohtash @ Fauji, involved in Case Crime/FIR No. 459 of 2024, Under Sections- 8A(c)/15(c)/25/29 of N.D.P.S Act, Police Station- Gosainganj, 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 3 BAIL No. 10837 of 2025 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).

9. 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 11, 2025 DiVYa (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) DIVYA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench