SAURABH GUPTA @ SAURABH KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No.
                        - 1137 of 2026

Saurabh Gupta @ Saurabh Kumar
                                                          .....Applicant(s)
                                  Versus

State Of U.P. And 3 Others
                                                             .....Opposite
                                                                   Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)      : Kamlesh Kumar Dwivedi, Raj Kumar
                                Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 72
                 HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.

1. Heard Shri Rakesh Pande, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri
Kamlesh Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Anoop
Trivedi, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Shri Paritosh
Kumar Malviya and Shri Chandan Agarwal, learned AGA-Ist for the
State and perused the record.

2. The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in
Case Crime no.354 of 2025, under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2),
61(2) of B.N.S. and Sections 21(ga), 27(Ka)/29 of N.D.P.S. Act, Police
Station Kotwali, District Jaunpur, with the prayer that in the event of
arrest, applicant may be released on bail.

3. It is contended by learned Senior Counsel that the applicant has been
falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that no offence
under the N.D.P.S. Act is made out against the applicant and at best
violation of terms of license issued to him can be said to be made out,
which is punishable under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. It is further
submitted that the applicant was issued a license by the competent
authority to sell and purchase various drugs under the terms and
conditions of the said license. He has purchased the drugs from one of the
firm of the Jharkhand and he has sold the same against genuine vouchers,
invoices and e-way bills annexed with the memo of application. It is
further submitted that the applicant is ready and willing to cooperate in
                                                      NABAIL No. 1137 of 2026
                               2


the investigation / trial.

4. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General for the State
has opposed the application for anticipatory bail and it has been submitted
by him that huge quantity of codeine-based cough syrups has been
recovered and the applicant has indulged in supply of the said codeine-
based cough syrups to non existent firm and no case for grant of
anticipatory bail is made out as the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS
Act are also to be taken into account. It is further submitted that when the
police investigated the matter, it was found that the codeine-based cough
syrups supplied by the firm of the applicant to various firms were not
found non existent. It is further contended by learned Additional
Advocate General that as per Division Bench judgement of this Court, the
Court has refused to quash the first information report registered across
the State in Birendra Lal Verma and fourt others Vs. State of U.P. and
three others after going through the various judgements of this Court as
well as of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

5. In reply, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appliant submits that
the parameters for quashing the first information for grant of anticipatory
bail are different and the earlier Division Bench in Vibhor Rana's case has
held that supply and sell of codeine-based cough syrups does not come
within the purview of N.D.P.S. Act and the judgement of the Division
Bench of this Court cannot be overruled by the judgement of another
Bench of this Court.

6. As per first information report, the firm of the applicant is said to have
purchased huge quantity of codeine-based cough syrups from a firm of
Jharkhand and the same is said to have been supplied to various non
existent firms.

7. The investigation is still going on and in view of the judgement of the
Division Bench of this Court in Birendra Lal Verma and four others
Vs. State of U.P. and three others, which has refused to quash the first
information reports registered across the State relating to seizure of
codeine based cough syrup and it cannot be said at this stage that this case
does not fall within the purview of NDPS Act.
                                                                                         NABAIL No. 1137 of 2026
                                                                   3


                                    8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and materials
                                    collected during investigation and also taking note of the provisions of
                                    Section 37 of NDPS Act, without expressing any opinion on the merits of
                                    the matter, no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out.

                                    9. The anticipatory bail application is hereby dismissed.



                                                                                   (Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)
                                    March 20, 2026
                                    RKM




Digitally signed by :-
RAJESH KUMAR MAURYA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad