Ashish Kumar Tripathi v. U.O.I. Thru. Inspector, Central Bureau Of Narcotics Lko

1.Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. S.M.Singh Royekwar, learned counsel for CBN, assisted by Mr. Vaibhav Saxena, Advocate. and perused the record.

2.The present bail application has been filed seeking bail in case crime/F.I.R No.09/2025/CBN/LKO under Sections 8/21/22/29 of NDPS Act, Challaned by Central Bureau of Narcotics Lucknow, District Lucknow.

3.In the prosecution case it is alleged that on 06.08.2025 at about 14.00 hrs, a joint raiding team headed by Shri S.P. Singh Superintendant as well as Deputy Narcotics Commissioner Lucknow has moved Badshahkheda Alam Nagar Lucknow and tried to join the local public person but they have allegedly denied due to their personal reasons as such the raiding team has reached to Ms. Shyam Masers Agencies Badshahkheda Alamnagar Lucknow where a person namely Ashish Kumar Tripathi Was standing outside the said Agency. It is also alleged that after opening the door of said firm, the personal search of applicant has been taken but nothing illegal article has been recovered from his possession and from the search of said room, some cartoon box containing scheduled medicines have been found and from the search of veranda etc, some scheduled medicines as well as general medicines have been found. 2 BAIL No. 9384 of 2025 It is further alleged that after recovery of aforesaid articles, a list in the name of List A has allegedly been prepared and the team has asked for bills of the said medicine as such the bills of Proxiwan Spas Capsules have been provided by applicant. It is also alleged that for purchasing the other medicines, no bill could be shown and it was informed that the entire entries are being made in computer but all the datas of computer are deleted as such the applicant has been arrested by the raiding team informing him that there is misuse of provisions of Drug and Cosmetics Rules as well as N.D.P.S. Act.

4.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is a valid drug licencee. He is innocent. Maliciously, he has been falsely implicated. It is not the case of the prosecution that the alleged drugs were sold or to be sold to some one or they have been misused by the applicant. Under the valid licence, the drugs have been procured by the accused applicant. There is no violation of any rules or provision of Section 8 of NDPS Act. It is GST registered firm. He has also filed some of the tax invoices as well as GST invoice of the seized drugs and submits that after release from jail, he can provide other relevant documents to show that the seized drugs were procured by the applicant under law. At the most, it can be alleged to be violation of Drugs & Cosmetics Act. No proper sampling has been done under NDPS Act. It is submitted that at the time of recovery, although entire valid papers were provided by the applicant, however, they have been misplaced by the Agency. Recovery memo does not mention any valid papers provided by the accused applicant. No case under Section 8 of NDPS Act is made out as the applicant has a valid licence. It is submitted that a perusal of the rejection order shows that the alleged seized drugs are within the permissible limit, particularly Codeine Phosphate which is alleged to be containing concentration of 1.27gms whereas 2.5 Codeine, i.e. morphine is permissible as held by Division Bench of this court in Vibhor Rana versus Union of India and another (2022)01ILR A15. 3 BAIL No. 9384 of 2025 It is submitted that the investigation is going on. The applicant undertakes to cooperate in the investigation. He has no criminal antecedent. The applicant is in jail since 6.8.2025.

5.Learned counsel for the Union of India, on the other hand while vehemently opposing the bail submits that the applicant was found in conscious possession of the drugs. During seizure, the applicant could not provide the relevant documents to show that these drugs were obtained by him under the licence issued to him. Some of the receipts have been filed by the applicant along with the bail application. The drug licence of the applicant has not been disputed by respondent's counsel.

6.Considering the above aspect of the matter, perusal of the record as well as the fact that applicant has no criminal antecedent, there is no independent public witness of the alleged recovery, admittedly, the applicant is a valid holder of drug licence for the purpose of wholesale, undertaking given by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant will cooperate in the investigation, twin condition under section 37 of NDPS Act appears to have been, prima facie, satisfied, the applicant is in jail since 6.8.2025, the judgment in the case of Vibhor Rana (supra), it is a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

7.Let the applicant Ashish Kumar Tripathi, 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 4 BAIL No. 9384 of 2025 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 under Section 229-A I.P.C. (now 269 BNS) (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 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 I.P.C. (now 209 BNS).

8.The application is allowed accordingly. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are confined to the present bail application and shall have no bearing on the merit of the trial. October 13, 2025 kkb/ (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) KRISHNA KUMAR BARANWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1.Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. S.M.Singh Royekwar, learned counsel for CBN, assisted by Mr. Vaibhav Saxena, Advocate. and perused the record.

2.The present bail application has been filed seeking bail in case crime/F.I.R No.09/2025/CBN/LKO under Sections 8/21/22/29 of NDPS Act, Challaned by Central Bureau of Narcotics Lucknow, District Lucknow.

3.In the prosecution case it is alleged that on 06.08.2025 at about 14.00 hrs, a joint raiding team headed by Shri S.P. Singh Superintendant as well as Deputy Narcotics Commissioner Lucknow has moved Badshahkheda Alam Nagar Lucknow and tried to join the local public person but they have allegedly denied due to their personal reasons as such the raiding team has reached to Ms. Shyam Masers Agencies Badshahkheda Alamnagar Lucknow where a person namely Ashish Kumar Tripathi Was standing outside the said Agency. It is also alleged that after opening the door of said firm, the personal search of applicant has been taken but nothing illegal article has been recovered from his possession and from the search of said room, some cartoon box containing scheduled medicines have been found and from the search of veranda etc, some scheduled medicines as well as general medicines have been found. 2 BAIL No. 9384 of 2025 It is further alleged that after recovery of aforesaid articles, a list in the name of List A has allegedly been prepared and the team has asked for bills of the said medicine as such the bills of Proxiwan Spas Capsules have been provided by applicant. It is also alleged that for purchasing the other medicines, no bill could be shown and it was informed that the entire entries are being made in computer but all the datas of computer are deleted as such the applicant has been arrested by the raiding team informing him that there is misuse of provisions of Drug and Cosmetics Rules as well as N.D.P.S. Act.

4.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is a valid drug licencee. He is innocent. Maliciously, he has been falsely implicated. It is not the case of the prosecution that the alleged drugs were sold or to be sold to some one or they have been misused by the applicant. Under the valid licence, the drugs have been procured by the accused applicant. There is no violation of any rules or provision of Section 8 of NDPS Act. It is GST registered firm. He has also filed some of the tax invoices as well as GST invoice of the seized drugs and submits that after release from jail, he can provide other relevant documents to show that the seized drugs were procured by the applicant under law. At the most, it can be alleged to be violation of Drugs & Cosmetics Act. No proper sampling has been done under NDPS Act. It is submitted that at the time of recovery, although entire valid papers were provided by the applicant, however, they have been misplaced by the Agency. Recovery memo does not mention any valid papers provided by the accused applicant. No case under Section 8 of NDPS Act is made out as the applicant has a valid licence. It is submitted that a perusal of the rejection order shows that the alleged seized drugs are within the permissible limit, particularly Codeine Phosphate which is alleged to be containing concentration of 1.27gms whereas 2.5 Codeine, i.e. morphine is permissible as held by Division Bench of this court in Vibhor Rana versus Union of India and another (2022)01ILR A15. 3 BAIL No. 9384 of 2025 It is submitted that the investigation is going on. The applicant undertakes to cooperate in the investigation. He has no criminal antecedent. The applicant is in jail since 6.8.2025.

5.Learned counsel for the Union of India, on the other hand while vehemently opposing the bail submits that the applicant was found in conscious possession of the drugs. During seizure, the applicant could not provide the relevant documents to show that these drugs were obtained by him under the licence issued to him. Some of the receipts have been filed by the applicant along with the bail application. The drug licence of the applicant has not been disputed by respondent's counsel.

6.Considering the above aspect of the matter, perusal of the record as well as the fact that applicant has no criminal antecedent, there is no independent public witness of the alleged recovery, admittedly, the applicant is a valid holder of drug licence for the purpose of wholesale, undertaking given by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant will cooperate in the investigation, twin condition under section 37 of NDPS Act appears to have been, prima facie, satisfied, the applicant is in jail since 6.8.2025, the judgment in the case of Vibhor Rana (supra), it is a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

7.Let the applicant Ashish Kumar Tripathi, 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 4 BAIL No. 9384 of 2025 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 under Section 229-A I.P.C. (now 269 BNS) (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 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 I.P.C. (now 209 BNS).

8.The application is allowed accordingly. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are confined to the present bail application and shall have no bearing on the merit of the trial. October 13, 2025 kkb/ (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) KRISHNA KUMAR BARANWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench