Ravi @ Master Vs State of U.P.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 21572 of 2025

Ravi @ Master

.....Applicant(s)

	Versus
State of U.P.	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Aditya Gupta, Harsh Vardhan Gupta
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 68

¶6

HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.

¶7

Heard Shri Aditya Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Arimardan Yadav, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record of the case.

¶8

The present bail application under Section 483 B.N.S.S. has been filed on behalf of applicant, Ravi Alias Master, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 126 of 2025, under Sections 8/20/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station- Kandhla, District Shamli.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that about 20 Kg of Charas is alleged to have been delivered to the co-accused Jitendra Alias Jitta by the applicant. In fact no such delivery was made by the applicant to the coaccused. It is further submitted that since such delivery is not supported by independent witness, possibility of his false implication in the crime cannot be ruled out. He submits that the alleged contraband has not been recovered from the possession of the applicant in fact it was recovered from the coaccused Jitendra Alias Jitta. It is next contended that in the present case the prosecution has failed to follow strictly the provisions of Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act. It is also argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present crime with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and victimize him. He submits that the applicant is languishing in jail since 25.06.2025 and if the applicant is released on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail. Hence the prayer for bail is made out.

¶10

Per contra, learned A.G.A for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and has stated that in the present case, 20 kilograms of Charas was

¶11

BAIL No. 21572 of 2025

¶12

2

¶13

delivered by applicant to the house of co-acused Jitendra alias Jitta by a vehicle. The commercial quantity is 01 kilogram (1000 grams). The 20 kilograms of Charas, recovered from the possession of the applicant, is 20 times from the commercial quantity, which is alleged to have been delivered by the applicant to the house of the co-accused by a vehicle (car). Learned A.G.A has further submitted that the applicant has criminal history of three cases of NDPS (out of six cases) which indicates that the applicant is intensively involved in the business of narcotics substances.

¶14

Learned A.G.A has lastly submitted that the applicant has been arrested on the spot. He further pointed out that the bail application of co-accused Jitendra alias Jitta has already been rejected. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled for bail and his bail application is also liable to be rejected.

¶15

In the light of the facts and circumstances of the present case, it would be inappropriate to discuss the evidence in depth at this stage because it is likely to influence the trial of the accused. But, 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.

¶16

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.

¶17

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 trial of the case.

¶18

February 4, 2026 Vinod.

¶19

(Ashutosh Srivastava, J.)

¶20

Digitally signed by :- VINOD KUMAR JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ravi @ Master v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi @ Master v. State of U.P.

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

Similar cases

Maya Nishad vs State of U.P.

Vikas Trivedi vs State of U.P.

Vikas Trivedi vs State of U.P.

Kanhaiya Verma vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashish vs State of U.P.

Farhat Rafiq vs State of U.P.