Allahabad High Court
Case Details
HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J. Heard Sri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri S. K. Rai, learned AGA-I for the State Respondent and perused the record. The present bail application has been moved on behalf of accused-applicant seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 270 of 2025, under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 8/22-C of the NDPS Act, Police Station Nauchandi, District Meerut, during the pendency of the trial before the Trial Court. The bail application of the applicant before the court below was rejected by the Special Judge, NDPS Act/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 20, District Meerut, vide order dated 18.08.2025 and the applicant is languishing in jail since 01.08.2025. Learned counsel for the applicant has vehemently argued that the applicant is entirely innocent and has been falsely implicated in this very case for ulterior motive. A raid is stated to have been conducted by the Police Personnel along with Officers from the Department of Medicine and Drugs and the Special Task Force (STF) on a house situate in Sector-11, Meerut and several medicines, drugs and injections not authorized for sale, forged Government documents were recovered from the joint possession the applicant and co-accused. Amongst the medicines 2 BAIL No. 32635 of 2025 recovered were large quantities of Diazepam Injections, Alprazolam Tablets, Horozapam Tablets, Buprenorphine Injections, Pentazocine Injections, Tramadol Injections which fall under the narcotics and psychotropic drugs. Besides the above, different quantities of Gollam, Alpraex Ativan Tabs, Lygesic Injections, Gogsval Injection, Biodol Injection, Spasmed Capsule, Tramazom Injection, Valvidor Tabs, Spasmo Proxyvon Capsules, Ulteramon Tab, Teroval Ultral Tabs were recovered. A recovery memo was prepared. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that from the perusal of the recovery memo the quantity of Tramadol and Alprazolam marginally exceeds the commercial quantity and all the other substances seized fall below the threshold of respective commercial quantities. It has also been argued that the co-accused Azad Ali is a Licensed Pharmacist and it is natural for him to possess such medicines. The applicant has no connection, relation or business dealings with the said co-accused Azad Ali. The premises from where the alleged recoveries have been made does not belong to the applicant. False recovery has been shown against the applicant and there are no independent or public witnesses to support the alleged recovery. It is also argued that the arrest of the applicant has been falsely shown from the spot i.e. house of the co-accused. The correct fact is that the arrest of the applicant has been made from his residence at 20:31 Hrs. i.e. nearly three hours prior to the time recorded by the Police in the FIR. Recovery Memo which reflects his arrest at 23:55 Hrs. It is thus argued that the entire prosecution theory is doubtful. It is also argued that the applicant has no other criminal antecedents and he undertakes to cooperate in the trial and shall not misuse the liberty of bail if released on bail. Hence bail has been prayed for. Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the bail plea by submitting that from the possession of the applicant and the co- accused, 11 boxes containing intoxicated drugs, Diazepam, 3 BAIL No. 32635 of 2025 Alprazolam, Larazepam, Buprenorphine, Pentazocine, Tradmol and forged documents were recovered which establishes the complicity of the applicant in the commission of the crime. The applicant has also been apprehended from the spot. It is also contended that the applicant and the co-accused has indulged in smuggling of contraband drugs and the applicant was caught red handed along with the fake documents. The Investigating Officer during the course of investigation has collected the credible concrete evidence and the complicity of the accused applicant has been established. After investigation charge-sheet has already been submitted on
24.10.2025 under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(20 of BNS and Sections 8/20 of the NDPS Act, however, the charges are yet to be framed. It is, accordingly, prayed that the bail plea of the applicant warrants outright rejection. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Much emphasis has been led by learned counsel for the applicant to contend that the arrest of the applicant has not been made from the spot inasmuch as the arrest is stated to have been affected at 23:55 Hrs. on 01.08.2025 as is being reflected from the FIR. In fact, the arrest was made from the residence of the applicant on 20:30 Hrs. In order to establish the said fact learned counsel for the applicant has filed the screen shot showing the presence of the police vehicle in street reflecting the date as 01.08.2025 and time 20:32 Hrs. In Paragraph No. 15 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, it has been averred that the applicant was in fact arrested from his residence and not from the premises of the co-accused where the alleged recovery is shown. The screen shot of the CCTV Footage filed as Annexure No. 2 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application merely shows the presence of the police vehicle. From the screen shot, it is not apparent that the presence was in fact for arresting the applicant as alleged. The presence may have been during the course of 4 BAIL No. 32635 of 2025 investigation. Considering the quantity of contraband stated to have been recovered, coupled with the fact that the applicant has failed to establish his presence on the spot, perusal of the evidences, collected during investigation so far, prima facie, the involvement of the accused in the present case cannot be ruled out. No reason is found to falsely implicate the applicant/accused. Therefore, there is no good ground to release the applicant-accused on bail at this stage. All the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant pertain to the merits of the case and the same cannot be considered while considering application for grant of bail. This court is unable to form an opinion at this stage that the accused has not committed an offence. In the ultimate conclusion, considering facts and circumstances of the case, gravity of the offence, severity of punishment, in my opinion, no case for bail is made out. Accordingly, the bail application is hereby rejected. December 18, 2025 Ravi Prakash (Ashutosh Srivastava,J.)
HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J. Heard Sri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri S. K. Rai, learned AGA-I for the State Respondent and perused the record. The present bail application has been moved on behalf of accused-applicant seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 270 of 2025, under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 8/22-C of the NDPS Act, Police Station Nauchandi, District Meerut, during the pendency of the trial before the Trial Court. The bail application of the applicant before the court below was rejected by the Special Judge, NDPS Act/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 20, District Meerut, vide order dated 18.08.2025 and the applicant is languishing in jail since 01.08.2025. Learned counsel for the applicant has vehemently argued that the applicant is entirely innocent and has been falsely implicated in this very case for ulterior motive. A raid is stated to have been conducted by the Police Personnel along with Officers from the Department of Medicine and Drugs and the Special Task Force (STF) on a house situate in Sector-11, Meerut and several medicines, drugs and injections not authorized for sale, forged Government documents were recovered from the joint possession the applicant and co-accused. Amongst the medicines 2 BAIL No. 32635 of 2025 recovered were large quantities of Diazepam Injections, Alprazolam Tablets, Horozapam Tablets, Buprenorphine Injections, Pentazocine Injections, Tramadol Injections which fall under the narcotics and psychotropic drugs. Besides the above, different quantities of Gollam, Alpraex Ativan Tabs, Lygesic Injections, Gogsval Injection, Biodol Injection, Spasmed Capsule, Tramazom Injection, Valvidor Tabs, Spasmo Proxyvon Capsules, Ulteramon Tab, Teroval Ultral Tabs were recovered. A recovery memo was prepared. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that from the perusal of the recovery memo the quantity of Tramadol and Alprazolam marginally exceeds the commercial quantity and all the other substances seized fall below the threshold of respective commercial quantities. It has also been argued that the co-accused Azad Ali is a Licensed Pharmacist and it is natural for him to possess such medicines. The applicant has no connection, relation or business dealings with the said co-accused Azad Ali. The premises from where the alleged recoveries have been made does not belong to the applicant. False recovery has been shown against the applicant and there are no independent or public witnesses to support the alleged recovery. It is also argued that the arrest of the applicant has been falsely shown from the spot i.e. house of the co-accused. The correct fact is that the arrest of the applicant has been made from his residence at 20:31 Hrs. i.e. nearly three hours prior to the time recorded by the Police in the FIR. Recovery Memo which reflects his arrest at 23:55 Hrs. It is thus argued that the entire prosecution theory is doubtful. It is also argued that the applicant has no other criminal antecedents and he undertakes to cooperate in the trial and shall not misuse the liberty of bail if released on bail. Hence bail has been prayed for. Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the bail plea by submitting that from the possession of the applicant and the co- accused, 11 boxes containing intoxicated drugs, Diazepam, 3 BAIL No. 32635 of 2025 Alprazolam, Larazepam, Buprenorphine, Pentazocine, Tradmol and forged documents were recovered which establishes the complicity of the applicant in the commission of the crime. The applicant has also been apprehended from the spot. It is also contended that the applicant and the co-accused has indulged in smuggling of contraband drugs and the applicant was caught red handed along with the fake documents. The Investigating Officer during the course of investigation has collected the credible concrete evidence and the complicity of the accused applicant has been established. After investigation charge-sheet has already been submitted on
24.10.2025 under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(20 of BNS and Sections 8/20 of the NDPS Act, however, the charges are yet to be framed. It is, accordingly, prayed that the bail plea of the applicant warrants outright rejection. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Much emphasis has been led by learned counsel for the applicant to contend that the arrest of the applicant has not been made from the spot inasmuch as the arrest is stated to have been affected at 23:55 Hrs. on 01.08.2025 as is being reflected from the FIR. In fact, the arrest was made from the residence of the applicant on 20:30 Hrs. In order to establish the said fact learned counsel for the applicant has filed the screen shot showing the presence of the police vehicle in street reflecting the date as 01.08.2025 and time 20:32 Hrs. In Paragraph No. 15 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, it has been averred that the applicant was in fact arrested from his residence and not from the premises of the co-accused where the alleged recovery is shown. The screen shot of the CCTV Footage filed as Annexure No. 2 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application merely shows the presence of the police vehicle. From the screen shot, it is not apparent that the presence was in fact for arresting the applicant as alleged. The presence may have been during the course of 4 BAIL No. 32635 of 2025 investigation. Considering the quantity of contraband stated to have been recovered, coupled with the fact that the applicant has failed to establish his presence on the spot, perusal of the evidences, collected during investigation so far, prima facie, the involvement of the accused in the present case cannot be ruled out. No reason is found to falsely implicate the applicant/accused. Therefore, there is no good ground to release the applicant-accused on bail at this stage. All the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant pertain to the merits of the case and the same cannot be considered while considering application for grant of bail. This court is unable to form an opinion at this stage that the accused has not committed an offence. In the ultimate conclusion, considering facts and circumstances of the case, gravity of the offence, severity of punishment, in my opinion, no case for bail is made out. Accordingly, the bail application is hereby rejected. December 18, 2025 Ravi Prakash (Ashutosh Srivastava,J.)