Allahabad High Court
AZAD JAISWALversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
Holding
The court held that the applicant, Azad Jaiswal, is entitled to be released on bail.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Azad Jaiswal, a driver employed by the owner of a godown where large quantities of codeine‑based cough syrups were seized during a police raid. Jaiswal was arrested alongside the seizure but the prosecution’s material did not link him to the storage or transport of the contraband, and he asserted that he was merely present as an employee. The court noted that the charge‑sheet had been filed, there was no need for further custodial interrogation, and Jaiswal had been in jail since 19‑Nov‑2025 without any prior criminal record. Relying on the principles laid down in Kapil Wadhawan v. CBI and Maya Tiwari v. State of U.P., as well as concerns of jail overcrowding and trial pendency, the court found no substantive reason to deny bail. Consequently, the bail application was allowed subject to a personal bond, sureties and standard conditions. The order also directed electronic transmission of the bail order to the jail and trial court to ensure prompt release.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to an accused under Sections 8, 21, 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act when the evidence against him is limited to his presence at the scene.
- Whether the applicant's role as a driver and lack of incriminating material justify release on bail.
- How considerations of jail overcrowding and case pendency affect bail decisions under the NDPS Act.
- Application of precedents such as Kapil Wadhawan v. CBI and Maya Tiwari v. State of U.P. to the bail determination.
Legislation cited
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act — s. 21, 25, 29, 8
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- codeine cough syrup
- drug trafficking
- overcrowded prisons
- presumption of innocence
- employee defense
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27117 of 2026
Azad Jaiswal
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Neeja Srivastava, Sr. Advocate,
Virendra Kumar Maurya
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 66
HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL, J.
1. Heard Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by
Sri Virendra Kumar Maurya, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri P.K.
Malviya, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to release the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 343 of 2025, under Sections 8, 21,
25, 29 of the NDPS Act, Police Station Rohaniya, District Varanasi,
during the pendency of the trial.
3. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that, as per the
prosecution story, police, after receiving a tip, have raided the godown of
Mahesh Kumar Singh situated on Prayagraj-Kolkata Highway.
Thereafter, on inspection, 75,150 bottles of Eskuff cough syrup and
18,600 bottles of New Phensedyl cough syrup were recovered and the
applicant was also arrested adjacent to the godown. It is further submitted
that the applicant is a driver of the Mahesh Kumar Singh (owner of the
godown) and his only duty is to drive the vehicle of Mahesh Kumar
Singh. There is no material regarding the involvement of the applicant in
illegal storage or transportation of the codeine-based cough syrup and it is
Mahesh Kumar Singh, being the owner of the godown, who must be
aware of the storage or further transportation of the codeine-based cough
syrup. Therefore, the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present
case merely for being an employee of the godown and because he was
present at the time of the incident.
BAIL No. 27117 of 2026
2
4. It is further submitted that the applicant has explained the criminal
history of one case. It is further submitted that the charge-sheet has been
filed in the present case; therefore, there is no requirement of custodial
interrogation. The applicant is a law-abiding citizen and he is languishing
in jail since 19.11.2025. In case he is granted bail, he will not misuse the
liberty of bail and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.
5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail
but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.
6. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions
of learned counsel for the parties and taking into account the fact that the
applicant was an employee of the godown owner Mahesh Kumar Singh
and there is no other material against the applicant, and keeping in view
the nature of the offence, evidence and complicity of the accused, and
taking into account overcrowded jails and heavy pendency of criminal
cases before the trial courts, as well as considering the mandate of the
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kapil Wadhawan vs. Central
Bureau of Investigation, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 3038, as
well as the guideline of this Court in the case of Maya Tiwari Vs. State
of U.P., 2024 SCC OnLine All 6765, regarding grant of bail and without
expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that
the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. Accordingly, the present
application is allowed.
7. Let the applicant- Azad Jaiswal, involved in the aforementioned crime
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:-
i. 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.
ii. The applicant shall cooperate in the trial/investigation sincerely without
seeking any adjournment.
BAIL No. 27117 of 2026
3
iii. The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission
of any crime after being released on bail.
iv. The applicant shall attend in accordance with the conditions of the
bond executed by him.
8. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail.
9. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be
verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
10. Verification of mobile number and Aadhaar card of the applicant as
well as sureties should be verified by the court concerned.
11. It is made clear that the applicant shall be released on the basis of
computer generated copy of this order, downloaded from the official
website of High Court Allahabad and verified by the concerned counsel
with the undertaking that the certified copy will be filed within 15 days.
12. It is further directed that the trial court shall send the release order to
the concerned jail through Bail Order Management System (BOMS) to
ensure early release of the applicant.
13. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the applicant through
Jail Superintendent, Varanasi via e-mail or on e-prison portal and Trial
Court via e-mode within 24 hours in compliance of the order of the Apex
Court in the case of Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail, In Re: Suo Motu
Writ Petition (Crl.) No.4 of 2021 decided on 31.01.2023 reported in
(2024) 10 SCC 685 as well as Pila Pahan@Peela Pahan and others Vs.
State of Jharkhand and another, in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 169
of 2025, decided on 29.05.2026.
14. Application, if any, stands disposed of.
(Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.)
September 8, 2026
SA
Digitally signed by :-
SALMAN ALI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…