Ashok vs State of U.P. Thru. Home Deptt. Lko.

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No.249 of 2026, under Section 8/20 N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station- Kotwali, District- Unnao.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that earlier, the applicant was implicated in three cases and in all the cases, he is on bail, however, only with the intention to show good work, he has been implicated in the present case alongwith co-accused Amar Singh who has already been enlarged on bail by the trial Court. Therefore, the submission is that the applicant is also entitled for bail.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of bail. He submits that the applicant was having criminal antecedent of three cases and one case was related to N.D.P.S. Act. However, he does not dispute the fact that co-accused has already been enlarged on bail.

¶12

Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and going through the contents of FIR as well as other relevant documents, it is evident that quantity of alleged contraband is less than commercial quantity. The coaccused has already been enlarged on bail. Therefore, the applicant is also entitled for bail.

¶13

BAIL No. 4012 of 2026

¶14

2

¶15

6. The bail application is allowed .

¶16

Let the applicant- Ashok who is involved in aforementioned 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 following conditions:

¶17

(i) The applicant shall not commit or participate in any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶18

(ii) 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.

¶19

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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.

¶20

(iv) 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 I.P.C./269 B.N.S.

¶21

(v) 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./84 B.N.S.S. may be issued and if 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 I.P.C./209 B.N.S.

¶22

(vi) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 B.N.S.S. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without

¶23

BAIL No. 4012 of 2026

¶24

3

¶25

sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶26

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

¶27

(Rajeev Singh,J.)

¶28

June 8, 2026 Arpan

¶29

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

Ashok v. State of U.P. Thru. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok v. State of U.P. Thru. Home Deptt. 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

Similar cases

Ashutosh Tiwari @ Ankit Tiwari vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Tushar Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and Another

Ataullah Shah vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and

Rakesh Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Iliyas Khan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. /Addl. Chief Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Virendra and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.