The court considered the nature of the accusation, severity of punishment, supporting evidence, and prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge in granting bail to the applicant.

Arvind Kumar Mishra-I, J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, as well as learned counsel for the Union of India and perused the material available on record.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is a cultivator of Opium and he has obtained licence from Narcotics Department. The allegation against the applicant is alleged to the year as long back as 2011-12. Learned counsel has further contended that the alleged weight of Opium which was submitted was more that was cultivated. To be specific, produce was around 12kg 500g whereas deposit Opium is 13kg 230g On examination only 62.20% of Opium was found to be pure whereas remaining Opium was adulterated.

3. Learned counsel has further contended that notice was sent to the applicant to get sample retested in the laboratory but on the date fixed, he could not turn up because of illness and in his absence, the order was passed by the competent authority. Against this order, an appeal was preferred. Copy whereof has been placed on record by way of filing rejoinder affidavit as Annexure RA-1. Although learned counsel could not mention exact number of the appeal so preferred.

4. The factum of appeal has been denied in the counter affidavit. However, statement has been made on oath by the applicant. Therefore, it is presumed that he must be stating correct fact before this Court. Counter affidavit stipulates that reasonable opportunity was afforded to the applicant as contemplated under Rule 29 of Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Rules.

5. It has been contended that no offence under Section 8/19 (c) and 8/26 of Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, is made out against the applicant. The applicant is a cultivator and he claims to have been in possession of valid license issued by Narcotics Department after he satisfied the Narcotics Department with all the documents needed for obtaining license. The applicant is languishing in jail since 28.01.2016.

6. Considered the facts and circumstances of the case and also the submissions raised on behalf of both the parties. It is obvious that the matter is still sub judice and its outcome is yet to be looked into. However, it is expected that till finality of the matter at the appellate stage as claimed by the applicant, it would be in the fitness of things that the applicant be admitted to bail.

7. Learned counsel for the Union of India has opposed prayer for bail. However, he has not disputed the aforesaid facts.

8. Without expressing any opinion on merits of the case but considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant and prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. Accordingly, bail application is allowed.

9. Let the applicant Bhola involved in S.S.T. No.21 of 2015, under Sections 8/19 (c) and 8/26 of Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, Challaned by Central Bureau of Narcotics, District Barabanki be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions: -

(i) 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.

(ii) 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.

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of