Tarun Girdhar vs State of U.P.

The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 446 of 2025, under Sections 318(2), 318(4), 61(2), 111, 341(1) B.N.S., Police Station- Nai Mandi, DistrictMuzaffar Nagar during pendency of the trial.

¶12

Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. There is no material at this stage to suggest that the alleged drugs were spurious or sub-standard quality. The wife of the applicant is the proprietor of the firm namely M/s Ayush Medicose. M/s Ayush Medicose has the lincece to sell or stock the alleged drugs. The applicant has no concern with the alleged recovery. No complaint under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act has been filed against the applicant. further, on the basis of allegations, the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence under Section 318(4) B.N.S. is not made out against the applicant. At this stage, there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. The applicant is neither a member of any organized crime syndicate nor he acted on behalf of such syndicate. The applicant is in jail since 10.9.2025 having no criminal history. In case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶14

Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this

¶15

BAIL No. 39702 of 2025

¶16

2

¶17

Court prima facie finds that there is no material at this stage to suggest that the alleged drugs were spurious or sub-standard quality. The wife of the applicant is the proprietor of the firm namely M/s Ayush Medicose. No complaint under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act has been filed against the applicant. The necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence under Section 318(4) B.N.S. is not made out against the applicant. At this stage, there is no substantive evidence to link the applicant with the offence. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. Further the applicant has presently remained confined for more than two months and 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 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.

¶18

Let the applicant, Tarun Girdhar involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned on the following conditions that:

¶19

i. the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

¶20

ii. the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witness;

¶21

iii. the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court.

¶22