Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:8486 Court No. - 68 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 42536 of 2024 Applicant :- Rajnish Nigam Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind,Vikas Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Krishna Agarawal Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and Shri Krishna Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, the Central Bureau of Narcotics, Lucknow. The instant first bail application on behalf of the applicant-accused Rajnish Nigam, son of Raveesh Kumar Nigam has been filed seeking release on bail in C.B.N. Matter No. 04 of 2024, under Section 8, 22, 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985, Police Station C.B.N. Lucknow, during the pendency of the trial in the Court below. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this very case and is completely innocent. As per the prosecution version, a raid on the shop of one Vansh Jain co-accused was conducted by the officials of the CBN, Lucknow and 60,000 tablets of Calmpik 0.5 mg, Alprazolam Tablet + 24,000 Proxyco SPAS Tramadol Tablet were recovered. The statement of co-accused Vansh Jain was recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act and the applicant's name featured in the said statement and he has been implicated. The applicant was arrested on 26.9.2024. The bail application of the applicant was rejected by the learned Special Judge (NDPS Act), Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Bijnor vide order dated 8.10.2024. The applicant is incarcerated in Jail since 27.9.2024. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that nothing has been recovered from the possession or pointing out of the applicant and the alleged recovery is from co-accused Vansh Jain. There is no public witness and all the witnesses are police personnel. The applicant is a wholesale dealer of medicines having a valid licence for selling medicines and co-accused Vansh Jain used to purchase medicines from the firm of the applicant in the name and style of M/s Kartik Enterprises. However, the same was closed down and the drug licence surrendered. At present, the applicant is running business under firm M/s K. Life Sciences, Lucknow. It is argued that except the statement of co-accused Vansh Jain, there is no material against the applicant. It is also submitted that there is no compliance of Section 52-A (2) of the NDPS Act. Section 42 of the NDPS Act and Section 37 of the NDPS Act is not attracted to the case of the applicant. Placing reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Tofan Singh versus State of Tamil Nadu (Crl. Appeal No. 152 of 2013) decided on 29.10.2020, it is contended that merely on the basis of confessional statement of the co-accused under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, the complicity of the applicant cannot be assumed. Prayer for releasing the applicant is accordingly made. Per contra, Shri Krishna Agarwal, learned counsel representing the Central Bureau of Narcotics, Lucknow/respondent No. 2, opposing the bail application submits that the seized psychotropic drugs from the co-accused Vansh Jain were illegally sold by the applicant to the said Vansh Jain. The applicant in his statement has admitted the receipt of Rs.1,99,000/- in his Bank account from the co- accused Vansh Jain. A bill in the name of M/s Jain Medical Store, Sihora, Bijnor, Ph. No. 8923856633 was retrieved from the laptop of the applicant and the same is a forged bill. The seized Alprazolam tablet were of the same batch as that shown to have been purchased from the applicant. The matter is still under investigation and complaint would be filed against the applicant in due course under the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act within the prescribed 180 days which still subsists. It is also alleged that the applicant has been transacting from the bank account of M/s Kartik Enterprises which has already closed down. The custodial interrogation of the applicant is required and hence, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the present case, 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 on-going investigation or trial of the case. Order Date :- 17.1.2025 Ravi Prakash (Ashutosh Srivastava, J.) Digitally signed by :- RAVI PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad