MONU SHARMAversusSTATE OF U.P.

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
         CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 37444 of 2025

Monu Sharma
                                                            .....Applicant(s)
                                   Versus

State of U.P.
                                                                .....Opposite
                                                                      Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)                          :    Sanjay Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)                     :    G.A.

Court No. - 69
                 HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.

1. Heard Shri Dilip Kumar Goswami, holding brief of Shri Sanjay Singh,
learned counsel for the applicant, and Shri S.D. Shukla, learned AGA for
the State-respondents and perused the record.

2. The present bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been filed on behalf of applicant, with a
prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.173 of 2025, under
Sections 8,20, 29, 60 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,
registered at Police Station Trans Yamuna, District Agra, during
pendency of the trial.

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the
applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case due to
ulterior motive. It is further submitted that 196.680 Kg of ganja is said to
have been recovered from a truck, in which, the applicant was found
sitting on the seat of the driver. It is further submitted that the mandatory
provisions of Section 52-A of N.D.P.S. Act have not been complied with
and the samples have not been taken in accordance with the Rules 9,10
and 11 of the notification published by the Union of India in the official
gazette and the samples have not been certified by the learned Judicial
Magistrate. It is further submitted that Annexure No.2 of the counter
affidavit filed by the State is on a printed proforma and the permission of
the Magistrate has been sought for collection of the samples and the
certification of the same has been signed by the learned Magistrate on a
printed proforma and therefore, Section 52-A of N.D.P.S. Act have not
                                                         BAIL No. 37444 of 2025
                                2


been complied with as required under the rules published by the Union of
India in the official gazette. The applicant is languishing in jail since
10.05.2025 and the applicant is having no criminal history, undertakes
that he will not misuse the liberty, if granted. It has also been pointed out
that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no
likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.

4. Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the
applicant and it has been submitted by him that the mandatory provisions
of Sections 50, 52-A of N.D.P.S. Act and Section 105 of BNSS have been
complied with and the allegedly recovered contraband amounts to huge
commercial quantity.

5. As per allegations in the first information report, 196.680 Kg of ganja
is said to have been recovered from a truck, in which, the applicant was
found sitting on the seat of the driver. It is further submitted that the
mandatory provisions of Section 52-A of N.D.P.S. Act have not been
complied with and the samples have not been taken in accordance with
the Rules 9,10 and 11 of the notification published by the Union of India
in the official gazette and the samples have not been certified by the
learned Judicial Magistrate. It is further submitted that Annexure No.2 of
the counter affidavit filed by the State is on a printed proforma, in which,
the name of the Court has been written by the pen and the signature has
been obtained. The applicant is languishing in jail since 10.05.2025.

6. Upon considering the totality of facts, nature and the evidence reflected
from record and also taking into consideration the provision of Section 37
of N.D.P.S. Act and the law laid down in the case of Union of India vs
Shiv Shanker Kesari (2007) 7 SCC 798 without expressing any opinion
on merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for bail. Hence, the present
bail application is allowed.

7. Let the applicant- Monu Sharma involved in the aforesaid case crime
shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/-
with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court
concerned :-

(i) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement,
                                                                                              BAIL No. 37444 of 2025
                                                                     3


                                    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.

                                    (ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution
                                    witnesses.

                                    (iii) 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 351 of B.N.S.S.

                                    (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 the trial court.

                                    (v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date
                                    fixed, either personally or through his counsel.

                                    8. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for
                                    cancellation of bail.

                                    9. It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the purpose of
                                    determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as
                                    an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely
                                    free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led
                                    unaffected by anything said in this order.



                                                                                      (Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)
                                    May 6, 2026
                                    RKM




Digitally signed by :-
RAJESH KUMAR MAURYA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad