Allahabad High Court
Raghvendra Singh vs U.O.I. Thru. Its Deputy Narcotics ... on 19 August, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:48579
Court No. - 13
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 908 of 2025
Applicant :- Raghvendra Singh
Opposite Party :- U.O.I. Thru. Its Deputy Narcotics Commissioner Central Bureau Of Narcotics And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Ayodhya Prasad Mishra A.P. Mishra,Ankit Singh,Jaylaxmi Upadhyay,Rituraj Mishra,Shesh Ram Verma
Counsel for Opposite Party :- S M Singh Royekwar
Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.
1. Heard Sri A.P. Mishra, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri S.M. Singh Royekwar, the learned counsel for the Central Bureau of Narcotics and perused the records.
2. On 25.07.2025, the applicant was granted interim anticipatory bail by this court by means of following order:-
"Heard Shri Ayodhya Prasad Mishra, learned counsel the applicant and Sri S M Singh Royekwar, learned counsel for respondent-Central Bureau of Narcotics.
The present anticipatory bail application has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in case crime/F.I.R No.03/2025, under Sections 8/22/29 of NDPS Act, P.S. CBN, District Lucknow.
In the prosecution case it is alleged that on the basis of secret information received on 12.05.2025 a team was constituted by the Central Bureau of Narcotics under the leadership of Sub-Inspector Avanish Bhaadu and two independent witnesses were also taken along with him. At about 19:15 hours, a boy wearing black T-shirt near Parvati Complex started picking up the Cartoon near the road. Upon that Avinash Bhaadu inquired from him who told his name Ali Akhtar Rizvi, he was made aware about the secret information with the team that these Cartoon contained illegal Pentazocine injection and he has to be searched. He was made aware about his right under Section 50 of the NDPS Act. He gave written permission for the search. On search made in front of punch witnesses, 15 Cartoons Pentazocine injection have been found. Ali Akhtar Rizvi has informed that these consignments belong to one Prabhat Dubey another co-accused. It is alleged that Prabhat Dubey works in M/S Pragati Enterprises. He further told that these consignments have to be shifted to M/S Minemed Transport Nagar, Lucknow. Prabhat Dubey was called on the spot who told that these Cartoons belong to M/S Shri Agency Ameenabad and have to be sent to M/S Minemed Transport Nagar, Lucknow. Both the accused could not show any legal document regarding the transport of these Pentazocine injection.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has no criminal history. Applicant is licensee under Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The recovery has not been made from him or his agent. Prabhat Dubey co-accused is also a licensee under Drugs and Cosmetics Act. He has drawn attention of the court towards Rule 61, sub-rule (1) & (2) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules read with form 20(a) & (b) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules under which the licence for these medicines have been granted to the applicant. He further submits that Section 8 of the NDPS Act (exception clause) read with Rules 65-A of the NDPS Rules, 1985 protect the applicant. He further submits that applicant is authorized and protected to carry out the trade of the aforesaid injections being a licensee under Drugs and Cosmetics Act.
It is further submitted that Sections 28 to 31 of the NDPS Act provides the penalty, confiscation in case of violation of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, there is no violation of any of the provisions of NDPS Act. He submits that only on the basis of alleged statement given by the wife of the applicant to the prosecuting agency, he has been given notice under Section 67 of the NDPS Act thus, he apprehends his arrest. He further undertakes that applicant will cooperate in the investigation.
Learned counsel for respondents has opposed the anticipatory bail application and has said that it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. He has further stated that prosecution under NDPS Act and Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 can run simultaneously under two forums in view of the judgment of State of Punjab v. Rakesh Kumar reported in [(2019) 2 SCC 466], emphasis is on paragraph 10.
Learned Addl. Government Advocate prays for and is allowed 15 days' time to file counter affidavit.
Thereafter, one week time is granted to learned counsel for the applicant to file rejoinder affidavit, if any.
List on 19.08.2025.
Considering the above aspect of the matter, perusal of the record as well as the fact that applicant has no criminal history, the provisions of Section 8 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act as well as Rule 65A of the NDPS Rules so also the provisions of Drugs and Cosmetics Act brought to the notice of this Court during course of the argument also considering the fact that there is no recovery from the applicant, applicant is not even named in the case as stated by the applicant, applicant is authorized licensee of the drug, undertaking given by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant will cooperate in the investigation as also the judgment of Apex Court passed in Sushila Aggarwal and others versus State (NCT of Delhi) and another (2020)5 SCC 1, it would be appropriate to grant interim protection to the applicant.
Till the next date of listing, it is provided that in the event of arrest, the applicant-Raghvendra Singhshall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/I.O./S.H.O. concerned.
The applicant shall cooperate in the investigation and he will not influence the witness. The accused-applicant will remain present as and when the arresting officer/I.O./S.H.O. concerned call(s) for investigation/interrogation. The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court.
In case of default, it would be open for the investigating agency to move application for vacation of this interim protection. "
3. The State has filed a counter affidavit annexing therewith the material collected during investigation and a copy of the charge sheet.
4. Learned A.G.A. did not point out any violation of the conditions of interim anticipatory bail committed by the applicant. Nothing has come to light which may persuade this court to take a view, other than the view taken at the time of granting interim anticipatory bail to the applicant.
5. In view of above, the interim order dated 25.07.2025 is made absolute and the anticipatory bail application is allowed in terms of the order dated 25.07.2025.
.
[Subhash Vidyarthi, J.]
Order Date :- 19.8.2025/-Amit K-
