Vakar @ Chaina vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

In the prosecution case, it is alleged that two persons riding on a motorcycle were apprehended by the police team. Upon their personal search, 14 grams of smack was allegedly recovered from the possession of the co-accused, and 55 grams of smack was allegedly recovered from the applicant.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has no prior criminal antecedents. The recovered quantity is below the commercial threshold. It is further submitted that there is no compliance of the mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. The applicant is languishing in jail since 11.09.2025.

¶13

The co-accused Gulzar has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 7.11.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.10701 of 2025. He seeks parity with the bail order of the said co-accused.

¶14

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

¶15

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶16

BAIL No. 11340 of 2025

¶17

2

¶18

Considering the bail order of the co-accused Gulzar and the facts that there appears to be non-compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act, the recovered quantity is below the commercial threshold, and the applicant has no criminal antecedents and is in custody since 11.09.2025, this Court finds it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶19

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed on the ground of parity.

¶20

Let the applicant Vakar @ Chaina , involved in Case Crime No. 166/2025, Under Section: 8/21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station: Jayas, District: Amethi, 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:-

¶21

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶22

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶23

(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.

¶24

(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.

¶25

(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 sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code (Now Section 269 of BNS).

¶26

(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.

¶27

BAIL No. 11340 of 2025

¶28

3

¶29

(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).

¶30

November 20, 2025 Madhu D.R/P.S

¶31

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶32

Digitally signed by :- MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Vakar @ Chaina v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vakar @ Chaina v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Nadeem Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Himanchal Chauhan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. of U.P. Lko.

Girija Shankar Chaubey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Chandshekhar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Dr. Krishna Kumar Caroli vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Medical and Health Services Lko. and Another

Om Prakash Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Lko and Another