Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 110259 (ALL)

SAURABH DUBEY v. STATE OF U.P.

BAIL/44846/2024 · 2025-02-12

Vivek Varma

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:20861 Court No. - 67 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44846 of 2024 Applicant :- Saurabh Dubey Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Pandey,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J. 1. Heard Sri Satish Trivedi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Ajay Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Shashank Shekhar Pandey, learned AGA for the State-respondent and perused the record. 2. The instant bail application under Section 483 of BNSS has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 755 of 2024, under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2), 276, 277, 278 BNS, Police Station Sikandra, District Agra during the pendency of trial. 3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. The applicant was having a licence to manufacture for sale or for distribution of drugs other than those specified in schedules C, C(I) and X of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945. The licence was issued for a premises at district Haridwar, Uttarakhand. The applicant was found manufacturing the drugs at district Agra. It is contended that violation of the terms of the licence is an offence under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940 for which a complaint under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 is to be instituted against the applicant. There is no allegation that the seized drugs were spurious, obnoxious or adulterated. No report has also been produced by learned AGA to establish that the seized drugs were adulterated. The applicant has not forged or manipulated any documents. Further, there is no independent witness at the time of inspection or seizure of the alleged drugs. At this stage, there is no credible evidence to link the applicant with the offence. It is next contended that that identically placed co-accused Ashwini Gupta has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 13.02.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 45815 of 2024. The applicant claims parity. The applicant is in jail since 15.11.2024 having no criminal history and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty. 4. Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. 5. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this Court prima facie finds that violation of the terms of the licence is an offence under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940 for which a complaint under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 is to be instituted against the applicant. There is no allegation that the seized drugs were spurious, obnoxious or adulterated. No report has also been produced by learned AGA to establish that the seized drugs were adulterated. At this stage, there is no substantive evidence to link the applicant with the offence. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. Identically placed co-accused Ashwini Gupta has been granted bail by this Court. Further, the applicant has remained confined for almost three months and there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, more so when no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the evidence or delay the trial or intimidate the witness, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. 6. Let the applicant Saurabh Dubey, involved in the aforesaid case 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 subject to the conditions that he: (i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court; (ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; and, (iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses; 7. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. Order Date :- 13.2.2025 Lbm/- Digitally signed by :- LAL BAHADUR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad