Dismissed¶¶19

Abhishek Tiwari v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home and Another

Allahabad HC15 Dec 2025NABAIL/1388/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail denied in NDPS case due to applicant's prior NDPS convictions and commercial quantity recovery from co-accused.

What did the court decide?

No case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out where the applicant has three prior NDPS cases, commercial quantity of morphine was recovered from a co-accused, and the applicant has a chequered criminal history in similar offences. ¶¶18

Abhishek Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy… — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 1388 of 2025

Abhishek Tiwari

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chie Another	f Secy. Home	And ....	.Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Aadarsh Srivastava,	Mishra, Puneet Shradha Mishra	Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶7

Court No. - 15

¶8

HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.

¶9

Heard Shri Adarsh Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶10

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime no. 296/2025, under sections 8,21,29,60 N.D.P.S Act, P.S- Lonikatra, District-Barabanki.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that, acting upon secret information, the police initially conducted a raid at the residence of the applicant, Abhishek Tiwari, for recovery of a narcotic substance; however, the applicant was not found present at his house. Subsequently, on the basis of another secret input, three co-accused persons, namely Rihan, Akash and Anwai Hussain, were apprehended, pursuant to which 600 grams of morphine was allegedly recovered from the possession of co-accused Rihan. It is further submitted that the co-accused disclosed that the said contraband was procured from the applicant, and solely on the basis of the said disclosure statement, the applicant has been implicated in the present case. Learned counsel further submits that the case of the applicant stands on a different footing from that of the co-accused from whom the alleged recovery has been effected.

¶12

It is also contended that there is no likelihood of the applicant absconding or

¶13

NABAIL No. 1388 of 2025

¶14

¶15

tampering with the prosecution witnesses if released on bail. Learned counsel assures that in the event the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty so granted.

¶16

On the other hand, learned AGA submits that the recovered quantity is below commercial. The applicant has a criminal antecedent of similar nature of NDPS cases total three in number which has been specifically pleaded in paragraph 27 of the bail application. No case for anticipatory bail is made out.

¶17

Perused the record.

¶18

Upon due consideration of the submissions and having regard to the fact that the present anticipatory bail application arises out of an offence under the NDPS Act; the applicant admittedly has criminal antecedents involving three cases under the NDPS Act; recovery of commercial quantity has been made from the co-accused; and considering the chequered criminal history of the applicant in cases of similar nature, this Court is of the opinion that no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out.

¶19

Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is dismissed .

¶20

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶21

December 15, 2025 R.C.

¶22

Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Abhishek Tiwari v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhishek Tiwari v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Bhanu Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Ranjeet Gautam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Rajiv Nayan Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Ranvijay Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Youth Welfare Deptt. Lko and 3 Others

Anandini Chaudhary and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Women Welfare and 4 Others

Keshav Ram Maurya vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Govt. Lko.