Bachcha Bharteey @ Karan Kumar Bhartiya vs State Of U.P.

1. Learned AGA for the State submits that the instructions have been received and he has no objection in case the bail application is decided on merits.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Anupam Anand, learned brief holder for the State-opposite party.

3. The instant bail application, under Section 483 BNSS, has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.173 of 2026, under Section 8/21 N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station- Naini, District Prayagraj during the pendency of trial.

4. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. False recovery of 106.15 gm. Alprazolam powder has been shown from the possession of the applicant. There is no independent witness to the recovery. The alleged contraband was weighed along with the packing material. The police has deliberately shown the quantity of the alleged narcotics substance marginally higher in order to add gravity to the offence. No accurate scientific instruments were used for weighment. The mandatory provisions of Sections 42, 50, 51 and 52-A of the N.D.P.S. Act have not been complied with. Criminal history of the applicant has been explained in para 15 of the affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 06.04.2026 and in case, he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

5. Learned brief holder for the State has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

6. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, I am of the prima facie view that the mandatory provisions of Sections 42, 50, 51 and 52-A of N.D.P.S. Act have not been complied with. There is no independent witness to the recovery. Inventory of the seized contraband was not duly certified by the Magistrate. Apart from the instant case, the applicant is not involved in any case under the NDPS Act, as such there are reasonable ground to believe that the applicant shall not indulge himself in other cases of similar nature. Moreover, the applicant has remained confined for almost one month and after submission of the charge-sheet there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, more so when no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the evidence or delay the trial or intimidate the witness, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

7. Let the applicant Bachcha Bharteey @ Karan Kumar Bhartiya involved in the aforesaid case 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 subject to the conditions that he:

(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;

(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; and,

(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.

8. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

(Vivek Varma,J.)

May 6, 2026

Lbm/-