Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

1. Heard Sri Farooq Ayoob, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rajesh Kumar, learned A.G.A. through video conferencing.

2. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant is in jail since 3.12.2021 in Case Crime No.361 of 2021, under Section 8/21 N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station – Zaidpur, District – Barabanki.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case as he has not committed any offence as alleged in the prosecution story. He has further submitted that as per prosecution story, 170 gm. Smack has been recovered from the possession of the present applicant whereas the commercial quantity of Smack is 250 gm. Therefore, the alleged item recovered from the possession of the applicant is below the commercial quantity. He has further submitted that there is no criminal history of any kind whatsoever against the present applicant. Addressing on the legal point, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the mandatory provision of Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act has not been complied with inasmuch as the proper offer apprising the right of the applicant for his search before the gazetted officer or Magistrate has not been given to the applicant. Further, there is no compliance of Section 55 & 57 of the N.D.P.S. Act as the seal after packing the contraband goods has not been handed over to the public independent eye witness and necessary information has not been sent to the higher authorities within 48 hours. Further, there is non-compliance of Section 52 of the N.D.P.S. Act. As a matter of fact, there is no independent witness of the alleged recovery. Further, signature of the applicant has not been taken upon any packet of the alleged contraband goods. He has lastly submitted that since the alleged quantity is less than commercial quantity and the present applicant has got no criminal history, therefore, the mandatory provision of Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act would not be applicable. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that if the applicant is released on bail, he shall abide by the terms and conditions of the bail order and shall not misuse the liberty of the bail and shall cooperate with the trial proceedings.

4. Learned A.G.A has, however, opposed the prayer for bail but he has not disputed the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the applicant.

5. Considering the fact that the alleged contraband item is less than commercial quantity and the present applicant is not having any prior criminal history, he is entitled for bail. However, the applicant shall furnish a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- and two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each and such sureties would be either local sureties or surety of relatives or well known persons to the present applicant so that in case of his failure to cooperate with the trial proceedings, the sureties could be compelled for appearance of the applicant through coercive process of law. Such sureties shall be verified properly and after proper verification of the sureties, the release order may be issued by the competent trial court.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and without entering into merits of the case, the bail application is allowed. Let applicantMohd. Sameer be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number subject to furnishing the bonds, as directed above, before 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 bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. 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 of the Indian Penal Code.

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without 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.