SUNNY @ SUNNY VIG v. UNION OF INDIA THRU. DEPUTY NARCOTICS COMMISSIONER C.B.N. AND ANOTHER
NABAIL/1145/2025 · 2025-09-02
Subhash Vidyarthi
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 160973 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 160973 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 1145 of 2025 Court No. - 13 HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.
1. Heard Shri Shivendra Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant as well as Shri S M Singh Royekwar, learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State. 2. The instant application has been filed by the applicant seeking anticipatory bail in F.I.R./Case Crime No.03 of 2025, under Sections 8/22/29 N.D.P.S. Act, registered at Police Station- Central Bureau Investigation, District- Lucknow. 3. The aforesaid case has been instituted on the basis of a recovery memo stating that officers of Central Bureau of Narcotics had apprehended two suspects with 15 cartons of illicit Pentazocine Injections. The suspect could not provide any documents regarding sale and purchase of the recovered substance. The cartons had labels of Brooks Laboratory. 4. During investigation, custodial statement of Prabhat Dubey was recorded in which he stated that his wife Pragati Dubey and another lady Smt. Shivani Srivastava have a firm name M/s Shri Agency. This firm had purchased the injections from Sis Biotech Lucknow and it was sold to M/s Minemed Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. The supply was taken by Sameer Dubey, a doctor of the aforesaid agency. 5. In the affidavit filed in support of the anticipatory bail application, it has been stated that the applicant is innocent having no criminal history and he has been falsely been implicated in the present case. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sanjeev Kumar Pandey, Anuj Kumar Awasthi, Sivendra Kumar Srivastav Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : S M Singh Royekwar Sunny @ Sunny Vig .....Applicant(s) Union Of India Thru. Deputy Narcotics Commissioner C.B.N. And Another .....Opposite Party(s)
6. Co-accused Raghvendra Singh, who is the husband of Nidhi Singh of Minemed Company, has been granted anticipatory bail in the present case by means of an order dated 19.08.2025 by this Court in Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 482 BNSS No.908 of 2025. 7. Shri S M Singh Royekwar has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and he has submitted that the applicant is involved in commission of the alleged offence and he is not entitled to be released on anticipatory bail. 8.
Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the applicant's name surfaced in the custodial statement of the accused persons wherein he has stated that the applicant was merely an employee of the purchasing organization, that the applicant has no criminal history and the co-accused has already been granted anticipatory bail in the present case, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant. 9. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. In the event of arrest/ appearance of applicant before the learned Trial Court in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing personal bond and two solvent sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of S.H.O./Court concerned on the following conditions and subject to any other conditions that may be fixed by the Trial Court : (i) that the applicant shall make himself/herself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) that the applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence; (iii) that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court. (iv) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted; and (v) that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. September 2, 2025 S. Shivhare NABAIL No. 1145 of 2025 2 (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHASHANK SHIVHARE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench