Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

DHARMENDRAversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided

Holding

The court denied bail, finding that the prima facie evidence did not justify release of the accused.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on behalf of Dharmendra, who was charged in Crime No. 771 of 2025 for alleged possession of 470 g of Alprazolam, an offence punishable under Sections 21 and 22 of the NDPS Act. The applicant’s counsel argued that he was innocent and falsely implicated, while the State’s Additional Government Advocate opposed bail. The court noted that, on a prima facie basis, the investigation material did not rule out the accused’s involvement and that the matter pertained to the merits of the case, which cannot be decided at the bail stage. Considering the gravity of the offence, the quantity of contraband, and the severity of punishment, the court found no sufficient ground to grant bail. Consequently, the bail application was rejected, with the court emphasizing that its observations are limited to the bail decision and will not affect the trial.

Issues considered

  • Whether bail should be granted to the accused under Section 483 CrPC in a case involving alleged possession of 470 g of Alprazolam under Sections 21 and 22 of the NDPS Act.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • bail
  • NDPS Act
  • Section 21
  • Section 22
  • CrPC 483
  • controlled substance
  • prima facie evidence
  • preliminary hearing

Judgment

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

    CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38259 of 2025

Dharmendra
                                                         .....Applicant(s)
                                Versus
State of U.P.
                                                            .....Opposite
                                                                  Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)     : Ashutosh Dwivedi, Vineet Kumar
                               Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party(s): G.A.

Court No. - 68
                HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.

Heard Shri C.P. Pandey, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Ashutosh
Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Puneet Kumar Singh,
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, Dharmendra with a prayer to release him
on bail in Case Crime No. 771 of 2025, under Sections 21/22
N.D.P.S, Police Station - Highway, District Mathura.

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is
innocent person and he has falsely implicated implicated in present
case. The alleged contraband article (Alprazolam) recovered from the
possession of accused and applicant is 470 gm, which is more than
quantity.

Learned A.G.A for the State vehemently oppose the prayer for bail.

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
                                                                                         BAIL No. 38259 of 2025
                                                                  2


                                    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.

                                    January 20, 2026
                                    Vinod.
                                                                                 (Ashutosh Srivastava,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
VINOD KUMAR JAISWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.