Allahabad High Court
LAXMI SHANKAR UPADHYAYversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- HARVIR SINGH
Holding
The bail application was rejected, and the accused was not released on bail.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Laxmi Shankar Upadhyay, who was charged under Sections 8, 21 and 60 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 for allegedly possessing 950 grams of heroin. The applicant contended that the seizure was illegal, no heroin was actually recovered from his possession, and that procedural safeguards were not observed, thus warranting bail. The State argued that the large quantity constituted a commercial amount, the seizure and arrest were conducted in accordance with law, and that releasing the accused could facilitate further drug trafficking. After weighing the allegations and the serious social impact of heroin circulation, the Court rejected the bail plea, emphasizing the gravity of the offence and its detrimental effect on society. The judgment was limited to the bail application and did not address the merits of the underlying criminal case.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted to an accused under the NDPS Act when a commercial quantity of heroin is alleged to have been seized.
- Whether the alleged procedural lapses in the seizure and arrest render the detention illegal and justify bail.
- Whether the seriousness of the offence and its social impact outweigh the presumption of innocence at the pre‑trial stage.
Legislation cited
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 21, 60, 8
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- heroin
- commercial quantity
- procedural lapse
- pre‑trial detention
- social impact
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12588 of 2026
Laxmi Shankar Upadhyay
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ali Hasan, Asif Hasan
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 70
HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the accused-applicant, learned A.G.A. for the
State and perused the material available on record.
2.This bail application has been moved on behalf of the
accused/applicant- Laxmi Shankar Upadhyay for grant of bail in Case
Crime No. 372 of 2025, under Sections 8/21/60 of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station Manduadeeh, District
Varanasi, during the pendency of trial.
3. Learned counsel for the accused-applicant, while pressing the bail
application, submits that, the accused-applicant has falsely been
implicated in this case and he has not committed any offence, as alleged
by the prosecution. He further submits that, 950 gms. Heroin is alleged to
have been recovered from the possession of the applicant in the first
information report of this case. In fact, no such recovery was effected
from the applicant. It is further submitted that, since such recovery is not
supported by independent witness, possibility of his false implication in
the crime, cannot be ruled out and it is also submitted that, while the
seizure was conducted, the concerned authorities did not follow the
procedure prescribed in the act and the said seizure is a sham exercise in
the absence of the procedure, as prescribed under the act and the law
settled on the subject, therefore, the arrest of the applicant/accused
becomes illegal. It is further submitted that, nothing has been recovered
from the personal possession of the applicant. He lastly submitted that the
applicant, who is in jail since 25.12.2025 and has no criminal antecedents
to his discredit is entitled to be enlarged on bail during pendency of the
trial.
BAIL No. 12588 of 2026
2
4. Per contra, learned AGA appearing on behalf of State submits that, the
quantity of Heroin, which has been recovered from the possession of the
accused- applicant is 950 gms, above the commercial quantity. The
concerned officials have followed due procedure of law, while seizing the
Heroin and arresting the accused. He further submits that, innocence of
the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, who is involved in
supplying contraband, therefore, the applicant does not deserve any
indulgence. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will again indulge
in similar activity.
5. Having considered the rival contentions of the parties and the fact that,
950 gms. Heroin has been recovered from the possession of the accused-
applicant and the impact of circulation of 950 gms. Heroin in the society
is likely to spoil the carrier of the youth across the country, wherever it
comes into circulation and is consumed. Therefore, it is beyond the
category of economic offence, as such, it has twin impacts; first of all it
promotes illegal earning of money, i.e., having unlawful pecuniary gain
by the persons, who are engaged in such illegal trade and business,
secondly, it destroys the very fabric of the society, when a youth, either
studying or preparing to secure job or running a business, comes in the
contact of such persons and consumes such items, such as. Heroin, then
the same results in destroying the family at large and consumption of
narcotic substance is a bane on the society. By all means, it is to be
reduced and minimized to the maximum extent, wherein the State is
taking all such steps to minimize the illegal use, trade and consumption of
such substance. Therefore, having considered the economic and social
aspects and the gravity of the crime, its impact on the society, the instant
bail application moved on behalf of accused / applicant Laxmi Shankar
Upadhyay is hereby rejected.
6. Observations made herein-above by this court are only for the purpose
of disposal of this bail application and shall not be construed as an
expression of this Court on the merits of the case.
(Harvir Singh,J.)
April 30, 2026
Faridul
Digitally signed by :-
FAREEDUL HASAN
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…