Ibran Vs State of U.P.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 36754 of 2025

Ibran

.....Applicant(s)

	Versus
State of U.P.		.....O	pposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Ajay Yadav, Kumar	Kumar Mishra, Rajesh Rakesh Kumar Mishra, Gupta	Kumar Sumit
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 68

¶6

HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.

¶7

Heard Shri Anil Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri 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, Ibran with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 66/25 under Section 8/22 N.D.P.S Act, Police Station Rehar, District Bijnor.

¶9

Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is innocent and he has falsely implicated implicated in present case. Learned Senior Counsel submits that as per prosecution case 74 boxes of Spasmore each containing 240 capsules, total 17,760 capsules with a total weight of 9.768 Kgs. are stated to have been recovered from the vehicle bearing registration No. UP-14-BV-3527.

¶10

Learned Senior Counsel submits that this Court vide order dated 5.1.2026 had posted the case for 20.1.2026 for FSL report for consideration of bail application. In pursuance thereto, learned AGA has brought on record FSL report by way of compliance affidavit and as per the report, the opinion of samples was found as under:-

¶11

"In the opinion of the undersigned, the sample referred to above is of standard quality as defined in the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and Rules thereunder for the reasons given below:-

¶12

BAIL No. 36754 of 2025

¶13

2

¶14

The sample conforms to IP, BP, USP, declared the formula, on the basis of tests done. "

¶15

Learned Senior Advocate submits that since the recovered substance does not find mention in the Schedule to the NDPS Act and find mention in the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, the prosecution against the applicant is not maintainable under NDPS Act.

¶16

Learned Senior Counsel 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. Learned Senior Counsel submits that charge sheet in this case has already been filed on 3.10.2025. Further custodial interrogation of the applicant is no more required. The applicant, who is in jail since 6.9.2025 having no criminal history to his credit, deserves to be released on bail. In case the applicant is released on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail..

¶17

Learned A.G.A for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and from the vehicle being driven by the applicant total 17760 capsules of Spasmore were recovered from the cartons and applicant was not able to produce any licence , in respect of which no licence was produced by the applicant. The weight of the recovered capsules is 9.768 kilograms, which is much more than the commercial quantity and the offence committed by the accused is of a serious in nature, therefore, the bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected.

¶18

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶19

In the case at hand, 74 boxes of Spasmore each containing 240 capsules, total 17,760 capsules with a total weight of 9.768 Kgs. were recovered from the vehicle being driven by the applicant.

¶20

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.

¶21

In the ultimate conclusion, considering the facts and circumstances of the

¶22

BAIL No. 36754 of 2025

¶23

3

¶24

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.

¶25

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.

¶26

January 20, 2026 Vinod.

¶27

(Ashutosh Srivastava,J.)

¶28

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

Ibran v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ibran 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

Fiza and Another Vs State of U.P.

Rizwan vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sahkari Sangh Sauraha Barna Tahsil Phulpur District Allahabad vs Udairaj Singh and 5 Others

Akash Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Manni Panchal Vs State of U.P.

Dharmendra Vs State of U.P.