Aayush @ Bauva Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.393 of 2025, under Sections 8/20/21/29/22/60 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, registered at Police Station Thakurganj, District Lucknow.

¶13

The present case was registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 14.07.2025 against four persons, including the applicant. The F.I.R. states that acting upon information received from a mukhbir, a raid was conducted at a house where the applicant and coaccused Sufian, were found sitting on a counter. They allegedly disclosed that they were selling Ganja and Morphine under the instructions of Shrawan Kumar Nishad, his wife Meena Devi, and their two sons, Lucky Nishad and Ayush, the applicant.

¶14

Although the aforesaid statement implicated Meena Devi and Lucky Nishad, they were not named as accused in the F.I.R. The F.I.R. further mentions that 1.015 kilograms of Morphine, 252 grams of Charas, and 5.500 kilograms of Ganja were recovered from the place indicated by the accused, including from the counter and concealed parts of the house. However, the F.I.R. does not specify the exact location within the house from where the alleged substances were recovered.

¶15

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the alleged recovery, as mentioned in the F.I.R., was made on the joint pointing out of four accused persons. It is further submitted that the applicant has no previous criminal antecedents. He is languishing in jail since 14.07.2025.

¶16

BAIL No. 8203 of 2025

¶17

2

¶18

It is further contended that co-accused Shravan Kumar Nishad has already been granted bail by this Court, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure No. RA-2 to the rejoinder affidavit, filed today. The learned counsel for the applicant, therefore, seeks parity with the said order.

¶19

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.

¶20

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail application, submitting that the father of the applicant is the owner of the house in question. However, he does not dispute that it is a case of parity.

¶21

Perused the record.

¶22

Upon due consideration of the material available on record, and taking into account the fact that the applicant was not arrested from the spot, nothing was recovered from his personal possession, and he has no prior criminal antecedents under the NDPS Act, it may reasonably be presumed that he is neither likely to be found guilty of the alleged offence nor likely to commit any offence under the NDPS Act in future.

¶23

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, and being satisfied with the twin conditions prescribed under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act, as well as the fact that co-accused Shravan Kumar Nishad has already been granted bail, and the applicant is in custody since 14.07.2025, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶24

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

¶25

Let the applicant Aayush @ Bauva involved in aforementioned case 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:-

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

(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.

¶29

(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.

¶30

BAIL No. 8203 of 2025

¶31

3

¶32

(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).

¶33

(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).

¶34

November 12, 2025 Renu/-

¶35

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶36

Digitally signed by :- RENU AGARWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Aayush @ Bauva v. the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aayush @ Bauva v. the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Manmohan @ Mohan Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Abhay Bajpai Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko.

Sumit Kumar @ Sumit Kushwaha Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko 3 Others

Yogendra Singh @ Jogendra Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Lko. and Another

Smt. Neelam Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Govt. of U.P. Lko.

Maan Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.