Allahabad High Court
Manoj Tiwari vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of ... on 8 October, 2025
Author: Karunesh Singh Pawar
Bench: Karunesh Singh Pawar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:61994
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5452 of 2025
Manoj Tiwari
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. U.P.
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Anjali Dubey, Rajiv Mishra, Soniya Mishra Soni Pathak
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 15
HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 0098 of 2025, under Section 8/20 N.D.P.S. Act, registered at Police Station Aasivan, District Unnao.
3. The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 06.04.2025 by a Sub Inspector of Police against the applicant and one Manoj Tiwari stating that both the accused persons were apprehended on the basis of an information received from a mukhbir. 2.650 Kgs. charas wrapped in a polythene was recovered from a bag being carried by the applicant and 2.550 Kgs. charas was recovered from the other accused Manoj Tiwari. The F.I.R. states that when the accused persons disclosed that they were carrying charas they were given an option to get themselves searched in presence of a gazetted officer or Magistrate, both the accused persons expressed their willingness for their search being carried out in presence of a gazetted officer. The Circle Officer of police was called on the spot.
4. Section 50 of NDPS Act contemplates that in such a situation the accused person shall be taken to a gazetted officer or Magistrate to ensure that the search is carried out in presence of a responsible independent officer of the government. Calling a Circle Officer of police on the spot to witness the recovery does not fulfill the spirit of Section 50 NDPS Act as the police officer is not an independent officer.
5. The learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the prayer for bail on the basis of instructions provided to him but the instructions do not contain any instruction about collecting samples of the substance and sending the same for being tested. The learned A.G.A. has stated the allegations have been established during investigation and a charge sheet has been submitted on 13.04.2025.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has a criminal history in one case under the NDPS Act involving commercial quantity, which has been explained in the bail application, and a copy of the relevant order is on record. The applicant seeks parity with the bail granted to co-accused Anwar Ali.
7. It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.
8. 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.
9. Considering the bail granted to co-accused Anwar Ali, the fact that the applicant is in custody since 07.04.2025, the filing of the charge sheet, and the judgment of Vimal Rajput vs. State of U.P. in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 3604 of 2024 passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court, I find this to be a fit case for granting bail to the applicant.
10. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.
11. Let the applicant Manoj Tiwari involved in the aforementioned crime number 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:-
(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
(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.
(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.
(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 in accordance with law.
(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). 12. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are confined to the present bail application and shall have no bearing on the merits of the trial.
(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)
October 8, 2025
R.C.
