Allahabad High Court
RAVI @ MASTERversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA
Holding
The Court held that no case for bail was made out and therefore rejected the bail application.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Criminal Procedure Code on behalf of Ravi alias Master, who is charged under Sections 8, 20 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985 for allegedly delivering 20 kg of charas to a co‑accused. The applicant argued that no delivery was made, the contraband was not recovered from him, and the prosecution failed to comply with Section 50 of the NDPS Act, contending that he was falsely implicated. The State countered that the charas was indeed delivered by the applicant, highlighted his prior NDPS convictions, and noted that bail for the co‑accused had already been denied. The Court examined the material on record, found a prima facie case of involvement and noted the gravity of the offence, concluding that the bail application could not be entertained at this stage. Consequently, the bail petition was rejected.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused under the NDPS Act given the alleged delivery of a commercial quantity of narcotics and his prior criminal record.
- Whether the prosecution complied with the procedural requirements of Section 50 of the NDPS Act in the seizure and recovery of the contraband.
- Whether the material on record establishes a prima facie case sufficient to deny bail at the pre‑trial stage.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 483
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 20, 29, 50, 8
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- charas
- commercial quantity
- prior criminal record
- Section 50 compliance
- prima facie case
- non‑bailable offence
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 21572 of 2025
Ravi @ Master
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Aditya Gupta, Harsh Vardhan Gupta
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 68
HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.
Heard Shri Aditya Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Arimardan
Yadav, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record of the case.
The present bail application under Section 483 B.N.S.S. has been filed on
behalf of applicant, Ravi Alias Master, with a prayer to release him on bail
in Case Crime No. 126 of 2025, under Sections 8/20/29 of the Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station- Kandhla,
District Shamli.
Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that about 20 Kg of Charas
is alleged to have been delivered to the co-accused Jitendra Alias Jitta by the
applicant. In fact no such delivery was made by the applicant to the co-
accused. It is further submitted that since such delivery is not supported by
independent witness, possibility of his false implication in the crime cannot
be ruled out. He submits that the alleged contraband has not been recovered
from the possession of the applicant in fact it was recovered from the co-
accused Jitendra Alias Jitta. It is next contended that in the present case the
prosecution has failed to follow strictly the provisions of Section 50 of the
N.D.P.S. Act. It is also argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and
has been falsely implicated in the present crime with a view to cause
unnecessary harassment and victimize him. He submits that the applicant is
languishing in jail since 25.06.2025 and if the applicant is released on bail,
he shall not misuse the liberty of bail. Hence the prayer for bail is made out.
Per contra, learned A.G.A for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for
bail and has stated that in the present case, 20 kilograms of Charas was
BAIL No. 21572 of 2025
2
delivered by applicant to the house of co-acused Jitendra alias Jitta by a
vehicle. The commercial quantity is 01 kilogram (1000 grams). The 20
kilograms of Charas, recovered from the possession of the applicant, is 20
times from the commercial quantity, which is alleged to have been delivered
by the applicant to the house of the co-accused by a vehicle (car). Learned
A.G.A has further submitted that the applicant has criminal history of three
cases of NDPS (out of six cases) which indicates that the applicant is
intensively involved in the business of narcotics substances.
Learned A.G.A has lastly submitted that the applicant has been arrested on
the spot. He further pointed out that the bail application of co-accused
Jitendra alias Jitta has already been rejected. Therefore, the applicant is not
entitled for bail and his bail application is also liable to be rejected.
In the light of the facts and circumstances of the present case, it would be
inappropriate to discuss the evidence in depth at this stage because it is
likely to influence the trial of the accused. But, from the 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 the 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.
It is clarified that the observations made regarding the bail application is
limited to the decision of the bail application and any observations made
herein shall not effect the trial of the case.
February 4, 2026
Vinod.
(Ashutosh Srivastava, J.)
Digitally signed by :-
VINOD KUMAR JAISWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…