Bhola Prasad vs State Of U.P.

A.F.R.
Reserved on : 25.08.2026
Delivered on: 01.09.2026
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 418 of 2026
Bhola Prasad
…..Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
…..Opposite Party(s)
Sr. Advocate, Abhinav Mishra, Abhinav
Counsel for Applicant(s) :
Singh, Aditya Gupta, Ajay Kumar, Ajay
Kumar Pandey, Amit Kumar
Srivastava, Anil Kumar Pathak, Anil
Kumar Tripathi, Ankit Agarval, Ankit
Singh, Anup Kumar Pandey, Anurag
Dubey, Anurag Shukla, Ashish
Chitranshi, Ashish Kumar Mishra,
Ashok Kumar Singh, Ashutosh Kumar
Singh, Ashutosh Mishra, Ashwani
Mishra, Atharva Dixit, Awadhesh
Kumar Srivastava, Ayush Mishra,
Balbir Singh, Bharti Dwivedi, Brijesh
Kumar Pandey, Deepesh Kumar Ojha,
Devendra Kumar Shukla, Dinesh
Kumar Pandey, Divya Yadav,
Divyanshu Pathak, Gaurav Srivastav,
Hemant Kumar Srivastava, Himanshu
Kushawaha, Kamal Singh, Km. Ashra,
Kripa Shankar Yadav, Krishna
Dwivedi, Krishna Kant Vishwakarma,
Kusum Mishra, Mannu Ram, Mayank
Chandra, Mohd. Samiuzzaman Khan,
Mushir Khan, Naman Agarwal,
Narayan Singh(kushwaha), Naseem
Ahmad, Neha Rani, Nitin Sharma,
Pavan Kumar, Pawan Kumar Rao,
Pawan Kumar Yadav, Piyush Patel,
Prabha Shanker Mishra, Pradeep
Kumar, Pradeep Kumar Soni, Pranav
Tiwary, Pratibha Jaiswal, Prince
Kumar Srivastava, Priyanka Singh,
Raghuvansh Misra, Raghvendra

2
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
Prakash, Rahul Dubey, Rajendra
Kumar Pandey, Rajendra Singh,
Rajesh Kumar Gautam, Rajesh Kumar
Singh, Rajesh Kumar Tiwari, Rajrshi
Gupta, Rakesh Kumar Mishra,
Ratnendu Kumar Singh, Ravesh
Kumar Singh, Rishabh Singh, Roshni
Murad, Rukmani Ojha, Salman
Ahmad, Sandeep Kumar Chaturvedi,
Sanjay Singh, Sanjeev Kumar Singh,
Santosh Kumar Rai, Santosh Singh,
Sarvagya Singh, Satyvendra Singh
Yadav, Saurabh Chaturvedi, Saurabh
Singh, Shagun K. Saran, Shailesh
Kumar Yadav, Shiv Bahadur Singh,
Shriyanshi Upadhyay, Shubham
Kumar Singh, Shweta Pandey, Sr.
Advocate, Sukrampal, Sumit Kumar
Gupta, Sunil Kumar Singh, Sunil
Kumar Yadav, Surya Pratap Singh,
Suyash Mehrotra, Syed Abid Ali Naqvi,
Tiwari Ajay Kumar, Vindeshwari
Prasad, Vipin Kumar Yadav, Vivek
Chaturvedi, Yogendra Nath Yadav,
Zeeshan Khan
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Along with :
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 12410 of 2026:  
Zaheeruddin
1.
Versus
State of U.P.
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 16482 of 2026:  
Girdhari
2.
Versus
State of U.P.
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 17349 of 2026:  
Usman Khan
3.
Versus
State of U.P.
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 17810 of 2026:  
Vinod Agrawal
4.
Versus
State of U.P.
5. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 18028 of 2026:  

3
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
Vinod Verma
Versus
State of U.P.
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 18059 of 2026:  
Rohit Kumar Verma
6.
Versus
State of U.P.
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 19353 of 2026:  
Santosh Giri
7.
Versus
State of U.P.
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 19867 of 2026:  
Wamik Ali
8.
Versus
State of U.P.
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 21530 of 2026:  
Mukesh Pandey
9.
Versus
State of U.P.
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 22392 of 2026:  
Shailendra Tiwari
10.
Versus
State of U.P.
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 25031 of 2026:  
Akash Chauhan
11.
Versus
State of U.P.
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 27222 of 2026:  
Harsh Agarwal
12.
Versus
State of U.P.
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 4459 of 2026:  
Sarvansh
13.
Versus
State of U.P.
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 5037 of 2026:  
Rajnesh Kumar Alias Raju
14.
Versus
State of U.P.

4
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 10322 of 2026:  
Parmatma Prasad Chaudhary
15.
Versus
State of U.P.
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 11617 of 2026:  
Priyanka Gupta
16.
Versus
State of U.P.
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 18610 of 2026:  
Ankush Singh
17.
Versus
State of U.P.
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 19913 of 2026:  
Wamik Ali
18.
Versus
State of U.P.
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 20174 of 2026:  
Azad Singh @ Golu
19.
Versus
State of U.P.
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 25007 of 2026:  
Anant Dev
20.
Versus
State of U.P.
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 26042 of 2026:  
Mohd Aslam
21.
Versus
State of U.P.
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 44015 of 2025:  
Brijmohan Shivhare
22.
Versus
State of U.P.
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 800 of 2026:  
Dharmendra Kumar Singh
23.
Versus
State of U.P.
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 15288 of 2026:  
Ankush Singh
24.
Versus

5
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
State of U.P.
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 16536 of 2026:  
Mohit
25.
Versus
State of U.P.
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 18776 of 2026:  
Vibhor Rana
26.
Versus
State of U.P.
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 19618 of 2026:  
Salman Khan
27.
Versus
State of U.P.
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 24317 of 2026:  
Shubham Singh
28.
Versus
State of U.P. and another
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 24920 of 2026:  
Swapanil Kesari
29.
Versus
State of U.P.
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 25269 of 2026:  
Yogesh Tiwari
30.
Versus
State of U.P.
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 26170 of 2026:  
Ravikar Singh
31.
Versus
State of U.P.
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 28474 of 2026:  
Shailendra Tiwari
32.
Versus
State of U.P.
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 43074 of 2025:  
Chetnarayan Chaudhary
33.
Versus
State of U.P.
34. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1298 of 2026:  

6
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
Ankit Patel
Versus
State of U.P.
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 15183 of 2026:  
Raghav Singh
35.
Versus
State of U.P.
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 17904 of 2026:  
Divesh Jaiswal
36.
Versus
State of U.P.
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 19447 of 2026:  
Sushil Yadav
37.
Versus
State of U.P.
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 19989 of 2026:  
Ashish Yadav
38.
Versus
State of U.P.
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 25190 of 2026:  
Umesh Chandra Alias Umesh Chandra Chaturvedi
39.
Versus
State of U.P.
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 27164 of 2026:  
Ghanshyam
40.
Versus
State of U.P.
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8147 of 2026:  
Jitendra Singh
41.
Versus
State of U.P.
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 11388 of 2026:  
Kamal Maurya
42.
Versus
State of U.P.
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 16465 of 2026:  
Ram Autar
43.
Versus
State of U.P.

7
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 17056 of 2026:  
Badal Arya
44.
Versus
State of U.P.
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 17864 of 2026:  
Vikesh @ Pappu
45.
Versus
State of U.P.
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 18771 of 2026:  
Vishal Singh
46.
Versus
State of U.P.
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 18882 of 2026:  
Jitendra Singh
47.
Versus
State of U.P.
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 22379 of 2026:  
Shailendra Tiwari
48.
Versus
State of U.P.
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 24890 of 2026:  
Tushar Kumar
49.
Versus
State of U.P.
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 25729 of 2026:  
Zeeshan
50.
Versus
State of U.P.
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 43070 of 2025:  
Kul Narayan
51.
Versus
State of U.P.
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 7622 of 2026:  
Shivanshu Singh
52.
Versus
State of U.P.
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 11375 of 2026:  
Pappu Ram Sharma @ Pradeep Sharma
53.
Versus

8
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
State of U.P.
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 14203 of 2026:  
Mohd Asad
54.
Versus
State of U.P.
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 14351 of 2026:  
Divesh Jaiswal
55.
Versus
State of U.P.
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 21158 of 2026:  
Faijur Rahman
56.
Versus
State of U.P.
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 22162 of 2026:  
Anant Dev
57.
Versus
State of U.P.
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 23065 of 2026:  
Amit Kumar Singh
58.
Versus
State of U.P. and another
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 7664 of 2026:  
Parag Bansal
59.
Versus
State of U.P.
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 14465 of 2026:  
Abhinav Kumar Yadav
60.
Versus
State of U.P.
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 15295 of 2026:  
Panjab Singh
61.
Versus
State of U.P.
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 16478 of 2026:  
Rehan Alam Raeen
62.
Versus
State of U.P.
63. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 17389 of 2026:  

9
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
Om Prakash Kharwar
Versus
State of U.P.
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 19531 of 2026:  
Himanshu Kasera
64.
Versus
State of U.P.
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 20106 of 2026:  
Dinesh Kumar Yadav
65.
Versus
State of U.P.
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 20249 of 2026:  
Sanskar Verma
66.
Versus
State of U.P.
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 20708 of 2026:  
Pankaj Kumar
67.
Versus
State of U.P.
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 20719 of 2026:  
Vaibhav Jaiswal
68.
Versus
State of U.P.
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 39018 of 2025:  
Sunil Kumar Vairagi
69.
Versus
State of U.P.
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 13162 of 2026:  
Ram Gopal Dhakad
70.
Versus
State of U.P.
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 14549 of 2026:  
Divesh Jaiswal
71.
Versus
State of U.P.
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 17096 of 2026:  
Aakash Pathak
72.
Versus
State of U.P.

10
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 18114 of 2026:  
Devesh Jaiswal @ Divesh Jaiswal
73.
Versus
State of U.P.
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 23044 of 2026:  
Deepu Yadav
74.
Versus
State of U.P.
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 45511 of 2025:  
Suraj Kumar Kharwar
75.
Versus
State of U.P.
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8466 of 2026:  
Pankaj Sharma
76.
Versus
State of U.P.
Court No. - 66
HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL, J.
1. All the above bail applications have been connected and
nominated to this Bench by the Hon’ble Chief Justice; therefore,
all bail applications are being disposed of with a common
judgment.
2. In all the bail applications, the common issue relates to stock,
sale and transport of codeine-based cough syrups (like New
Phensedyl, Eskuf, Codectus, Lykarex-T, Phencypink-T, Rexley-T).
3. Learned counsel for the applicants have jointly submitted that
the codeine-based cough syrup involved in the present cases has
the permitted quantity of codeine; therefore, such codeine-based
cough syrup cannot fall in the category of narcotic drug but is
simply a drug. Therefore, the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act (in short, ‘NDPS’ Act) will not be
applicable. However, the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics
Act would apply. Therefore, the police have falsely implicated all

11
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
the applicants by invoking the stringent provisions of the NDPS
Act.
4. In view of the above submission, the legal question has arisen
as to whether codeine-based cough syrup having the permitted
quantity of codeine and established in therapeutic practice will
attract the provisions of the NDPS Act, if the same is sold,
transported or stocked in violation of the conditions of licence
issued under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. On this issue, on
behalf of all the applicants, Sri G.S. Chaturvedi, learned Sr. Adv.,
Sri Nipun Singh, learned Sr. Adv., and Sri Sushil Shukla, learned
Sr. Adv., have advanced arguments on behalf of the applicants
and Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned Additional Advocate General
assisted by Sri Paritosh Kumar Malviya, Sri Chandan Agrawal,
Nitesh Kumar Srivastava, Ranjit Kumar Sagar, AGAs along with
Sri Rakesh Kumar Soni, State Law Officer on behalf of the State.
5. Sri G.S. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate, has submitted
that though codeine is a narcotic drug under the NDPS Act,
codeine-based cough syrup is not a narcotic drug because it has
the permitted quantity of codeine as per Entry 35 of Notification
dated 14.11.1985 issued under Section 2(xi)(b) of the NDPS Act.
This notification declared several narcotic substances, their salts
and preparations as manufactured drugs subject to the condition
that the codeine in such preparation should be more than 100 ml
per dose unit and the concentration of codeine should be more
than 2.5% in that preparation. It is submitted that the cough syrup
in the present cases have only 0.2% codeine, which is much
below the quantity prescribed as per Entry 35 of Notification dated
14.11.1985; therefore, the same would not fall within the definition
of manufactured drugs and the provision of the NDPS Act will not
be attracted if the same is sold, stocked or transported after
having a licence as stockist, dealer or retailer under the Drugs
and Cosmetics Act.

12
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
6. Sri Nipun Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant,
submitted that drugs mentioned in Schedule H and H(1) of the
Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the
Drugs Rules) can only be sold by a stockist on medical
prescription and Rules 65(5) of the Drugs Rules provides the
procedure for sale of drugs including the maintaining the record of
sale. It is further submitted that Rule 65(9) also prescribes that
drugs mentioned in Schedule H and H(1) should be supplied only
based on prescription by the retail outlet of medicine. He further
submitted that on the label of bottles of codeine based cough
syrups, the symbol ‘Rx’ has been mentioned instead of ‘NRx’ as
provided in Rule 97 © of the Drugs Rules, which requires that
drugs having narcotic contents should be mentioned ‘NRx’.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant also relied upon the
judgement of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of
Vibhor Rana vs Union of India and another; 2021 SCC OnLine All
908, wherein, in paras 41, 42 and 44, it has been observed that
phensedyl cough syrup was found having codeine concentration
of 0.2%. Therefore, as per Entry 35 of the notification dated
14.11.1985 issued by the Government of India in exercise of
powers under Section 2(xi) (b) of NDPS Act, this drug would not
fall under the definition of narcotic drugs; hence, it will not be
subjected to the provisions of NDPS Act.
8. He also submitted that as per the judgement of Vibhor Rana
(supra), the expression “therapeutic practice” mentioned in Entry
35 of the notification dated 14.11.1985 cannot be altered to mean
“therapeutic purposes” and mere use or misuse of a drug by the
end user or consumer would not have any effect on the governing
law.
9. He has also relied upon the judgment of the Single Bench of
this Court in the case of Ashok Kumar vs Union of India reported
in (2014) SCC OnLine All 16411, wherein it has been held that

13
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
Phensedyl containing less than 100 ml of codeine per dosage unit
would not fall within the category of narcotic drugs. He further
relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mohd.
Sahabuddin another vs State of Assam reported in (2012) 13 SCC
491 and submitted that the observation of Mohd. Sahabuddin’s
case (supra) is not applicable in the present case because in the
case of Mohd. Sahabuddin (supra), the recovered drug was
having more than the permitted quantity of codeine.
10. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the Central
Drug Authority has also clarified through notification dated
02.05.2009 that phensedyl drug is regulated by the Drugs Act and
cannot be termed as a narcotic drug; therefore, the provisions of
the NDPS Act would not apply in the present case.
11. Mr. Nipun Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, further
relied upon the judgement of Patna High Court in the case of
Sanjeev vs State of Bihar in Criminal Miscellaneous No.20517 of
2026, wherein after considering the judgement of Hira Singh vs
Union of India; (2020) 20 SCC 272, it has been observed that
Phensedyl cough syrup is within the permissible limit as
mentioned in the notification 1985 would not be narcotic drug.
12. Per contra, Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned Additional Advocate
General, vehemently opposed the submissions and submitted that
the notification dated 02.05.2009 issued by the Drug Controller
cannot be a correct interpretation of law as it is simply an
administrative instruction and cannot be treated as correct
interpretation which is in the exclusive domain of the Court. It is
further submitted that a solution or mixture of narcotic drugs will
not lose its character and will also remain narcotic subject to other
conditions of the NDPS Act. He further submitted that the
notification dated 14.11.1985 issued by the  Central Government
provides twin conditions for excluding the preparation from the
definition of manufactured drug: the first is preparations containing

14
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
codeine not more than 100 mg of drug per dose, subject to the
condition that the concentration of codeine should not exceed
2.5% in undivided preparations. The second mandatory condition
is that such preparations have been established in therapeutic
practice. Therefore, even if cough syrup contains the permitted
quantity of codeine, if the same is used for other than therapeutic
purposes, then it will definitely fall within the category of
manufactured drugs, as both the conditions are to be satisfied
even as per notification.
13. It is further submitted that in the present case, the codeine
syrup was transferred to different places for use other than
medicinal and scientific purposes. In such circumstances, it would
fall within the premise of a manufactured drug which would attract
the provisions of the NDPS Act.
14. Learned AAG further submitted that codeine is an opium
derivative which has been specifically mentioned in Section 2(xvi)
of the NDPS Act and Opium derivatives are defined as
manufactured drugs as per Section 2(xi) of the NDPS Act.
Therefore, codeine, in any form, will be a manufactured drug
under Section 2(xvi)(a)of the NDPS Act. It is further submitted that
in the Mohd. Sahabuddin’s case (supra), the recovered codeine
syrup also contained the permitted quantity of codeine. Therefore,
the law laid down in Mohd. Sahabuddin’s case (supra) is good law
which specifically prescribed satisfaction of twin conditions for
declaring codeine syrup as an exception to manufactured drug.
He has relied on paras 9, 10, 11, 11 and 12 of Mohd.
Sahabuddin’s case (supra), wherein it is mentioned that even if
recovered codeine syrup has less than 2.5% codeine
concentration, if any person transports it in huge quantities for
other purposes and not for therapeutic practice, then, codeine
syrup would fall within the category of narcotic drugs being a

15
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
manufactured drug as per Central Government’s notification dated
14.11.1985.
15. He further relied upon the judgement of the Apex Court in the
case of Union of India vs Sanjeev V. Deshpande (2014)13 SCC1,
wherein it has been observed that dealing in narcotic drugs,
except for medical or scientific purpose, would be punishable
under the NDPS Act. It is further submitted that in the case of
Sanjeev V. Deshpande’s case (supra), the Apex Court further
observed in para 35 that Section 80 of the NDPS Act is not in
contravention of, but in addition to, the provisions of the Drugs
and Cosmetics Act. Therefore, even if a drug containing a narcotic
substance is subject to a licence issued under the Drugs and
Cosmetics Act, if it violates conditions regarding the use of drugs
for medicinal or scientific purposes, it would definitely be
punishable under the NDPS Act.
16. Learned AAG further relied upon the judgement of the Apex
Court in the case of Hira Singh v Union of India, (2020) 20 SCC
272, wherein it has been observed that while determining the
quantity of drugs in a mixture, it should be considered as a whole,
not the actual weight of the narcotic in the mixture.
17. He further relied upon the judgement of the Apex Court in the
case of Revenue Intelligence Directorate vs. Raj Kumar Arora;
(2026) 2 SCC 401, wherein the Apex Court in paras 60, 61, 98
and 102.15 discussed the scheme of the Drugs and Cosmetics
Act and NDPS Act and observed that even if narcotic drug is
mentioned in the schedule H of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, if
same is narcotic drugs and uses in violation of Section 8(c) of
NDPS Act, then provisions of NDPS Act would definitely attract. In
the case of Raj Kumar Arora (supra), the Apex Court observed
that Buprenorphine Hydrochloride is mentioned as a psychotropic
substance in the NDPS Act even though the same is not
mentioned in the NDPS Rules; using it in violation of Section 8(c)

16
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
of the NDPS Act would attract the penalty provisions even though
the same is mentioned in Schedule H of the Drugs and Cosmetics
Act.
18. Learned AAG, Mr. Anoop Trivedi further submitted that the law
laid down in Vibhor Rana’s case (supra) is no longer correct
because the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of
Mohd. Ahsan vs Customs; 2022 SCC OnLine Del 2910 (Bail
Application No. 1136 of 2021) has declared the same as per
incuriam. He has also relied upon the following judgements;
Azhar Javaid Rather v. U.T. of J&K (MANU/JK/0274/2023)
Nasir Husain v. State of H.P. (MANU/HP/0658/2024)
Govindbhai Valabhai Prajapati v. State of Gujarat (MANU/GJ/1052/2023)
Ramraj Choudhury v. The State of West Bengal (MANU/WB/1741/2022)
Gopal Gupta vs. Central Bureau of Narcotics (CRA No. 2321/2026)
Pappu Gupta v. State of Madhya Pradesh (MANU/MP/0417/2021)
Dubarai Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (MANU/MP/0010/2024)
Ranjan v. State of Madhya Pradesh (MANU/MP/0010/2019)
Rahul Gupta v. State of Madhya Pradesh (MANU/MP/1679/2023)
Rajkamal Namdev v. State of Madhya Pradesh (MCRC-25233-2021)
Hamid v. State of Punjab (MANU/PH/0844/2024)
Inderjeet Singh @ Laddi vs. State of Punjab (CRM No. M-13140 of 2012) 
Ravi Kumar Prajapati @ Rav B Prajapati vs. State of Bihar 
Arman Ansari v. State of Bihar (MANU/BH/1399/2025)
Nilendra Kumar Karan and Ors. v. The State of Bihar (MANU/BH/1235/2025)
Naveen Bansal v. State (GNCTD) (MANU/DE/6186/2025)
Arvind Kumar v. The State (MANU/DE/0245/2020)
Ismail Aabdullah Ansari v. State of Maharashtra (2025:BHC-AS:32811)
Sandeep Kumar v. The State of Jharkhand (MANU/JH/1205/2021) 
A.M. Manikandan v. Intelligence Directorate (DRI) (MANU/TN/3100/2019)
Gavranjeet Singh @ Gavrana vs. The State of Rajasthan S.B. Criminal Misc.
Bail No. 3790/2017
Jaswinder Singh vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (2013 SCC OnLine HP
2080)
Praduman Justa vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (Cr.M.P.(M) No. 450 of 2016)

17
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
Harshal Desai vs. Central Bureau of Narcotics (CBI) (2024 SCC OnLine Mani
608)
19. Considering the aforesaid submissions, the question arises
whether codeine based cough syrup having a permitted quantity
of codeine is a narcotic drug or not, even if the same is not used
for therapeutic purposes. Therefore, this Court formulates the
following two questions for determination-
Question No. 1: Whether the codeine-based cough syrup having
permitted quantity of codeine as mentioned in Entry 35 of
Notification dated 14.11.1985 would attract the provisions of the
NDPS Act, if the same has been sold or transported by the drug
licence holder to another drug licence holder or any person for
medicinal purposes.
Question No. 2: Whether the codeine-based cough syrup having
permitted quantity of codeine, though produced for cough
suppressant, but transported, sold or stored for the purpose(like
intoxication) other than medicinal use, would attract the provisions
of the NDPS Act.
20. The composition of 100 ml bottle of new phensedyl cough
syrup as well as others cough syrup involved in the present case
is each contains: (i) chlorpheniramine maleate- 4mg (ii) codeine
phosphate- 10 mg. In Schedule H of the Drugs and Cosmetics
Act, narcotic drugs have also been mentioned at Sl. No. 346, and
codeine is also mentioned separately at Sl—no. 20 in Schedule
H-1 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. Note of Schedule H-1
provides that the preparation of drugs (codeine) shall also be
covered in Schedule H-1 and can be sold only on a medical
prescription. For selling any drug mentioned in Schedule H and
H1, including codeine, the stockist and retailer must maintain
records and hold a valid licence under the Drugs and Cosmetics
Act; violation is punishable under the Act.

18
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
21. Definition of drugs has been given in Section 3(b) of the Drugs
and Cosmetics Act, which includes all medicines for internal or
external use of human beings or animals, including all substances
intended to be used in the diagnosis, treatment and mitigation or
prevention of any disease or disorder of human beings or animals.
Drugs may include narcotic drugs, but for a substance to become
a narcotic drug, it should come within the definition of narcotic
drugs as mentioned in the NDPS Act. Narcotic drug has been
defined under Section 2(xiv) of the NDPS Act, which includes the
coca leaf, cannabis (hemp), opium and poppy straw, including all
manufactured drugs. It is undisputed that all cough syrups in the
present case are preparations of codeine. Natural manufactured
drugs or artificial manufactured drugs are also drugs. Section
2(xiv) of the NDPS Act is being quoted as under;
“Section 2(xiv) “narcotic drug” means coca leaf, cannabis (hemp),
opium, poppy straw and includes all manufactured drugs;”
22. Section 2(xi) of the NDPS Act defines the manufactured drug.
Under Section 2(xi)(a), it has been mentioned that apart from
coca derivatives and medicinal cannabis, opium derivatives and
poppy straw concentrate will also come within its purview. The
manufactured drug under Section 2(xi)(b) also includes other
narcotic substances or preparations which the Central
Government, by notification, declares to be a manufactured drug.
Section 2(xi) (b) also provides an exception to manufactured
drugs despite being a narcotic substance or its preparation if the
Central Government, by notification, declares it as not to be a
manufactured drug. Section 2(xi) of the NDPS Act is quoted as
under;
2(xi) “manufactured drug” means—
(a) all coca derivatives, medicinal cannabis, opium derivatives and
poppy straw concentrate;

19
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
(b) any other narcotic substance or preparation which the Central
Government may, having regard to the available information as to its
nature or to a decision, if any, under any International Convention, by
notification in the Official Gazette, declare to be a manufactured drug,
but does not include any narcotic substance or preparation which the
Central Government may, having regard to the available information as
to a decision, if any, under any International Convention, by notification
in the Official Gazette, declare not to be a manufactured drug;
23. Codeine comes in the definition of manufactured drug being
opium derivatives as per Section 2(xvi) of the NDPS Act. Section
2(xvi) is quoted as under;
(xvi) “opium derivative” means—
(a) medicinal opium, that is, opium which has undergone the
processes necessary to adapt it for medicinal use in accordance with
the requirements of the Indian Pharmacopoeia or any other
pharmacopoeia notified in this behalf by the Central Government,
whether in powder form or granulated or otherwise or mixed with
neutral materials;
(b) prepared opium, that is, any product of opium obtained by any
series of operations designed to transform opium into an extract
suitable for smoking and the dross or other residue remaining after
opium is smoked;
(c) phenanthrene alkaloids, namely, morphine, codeine, thebaine and
their salts;
(d) diacetylmorphine, that is, the alkaloid also known as dia-morphine
or heroin and its salts; and
(e) all preparations containing more than 0.2 per cent. of morphine or
containing any diacetylmorphine.
24. From the perusal of the definition of opium derivatives, it is
clear that, apart from codeine, morphine, thebaine,
diacetylmorphine and their salts, also come therein. It is clear
from the definition of opium derivatives that all preparations
containing more than 0.2% morphine or diacetylmorphine would

20
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
also come within the definition of opium derivatives. All
preparations which would be covered under opium derivatives
have been mentioned under Section 2(xvi)(e) of the NDPS Act,
but these preparations do not include the preparation of codeine.
The definition of preparation is also given under Section 2(xx) of
the NDPS Act, which includes any one or more narcotic drugs or
psychotropic substances in dosage form or any solution or
mixture, in whatever state containing one or more such drugs or
substances. Section 2(xx) of the NDPS Act is quoted as follows:
(xx) “preparation”, in relation to a narcotic drug or psychotropic
substance, means any one or more such drugs or substances in
dosage form or any solution or mixture, in whatever physical state,
containing one or more such drugs or substances;
25. Therefore, codeine based cough syrup (like phensedyle or
Eskuf) is a preparation having a mixture of codeine sulphate and
triprolidine hydrochloride or any other drugs but having contents
of codeine of 10 mg with concentration of 2.5% codeine in 5 ml
dose of syrup. As the preparation of codeine and certain other
opium derivatives was not clearly defined as a drug under Section
2 (xvi) of the NDPS Act, therefore, the Central Government, in
exercise of powers under Section 2(xi)(b) of the NDPS Act, issued
a notification on 14.11.1985.
26. This notification declared certain narcotic substance as well as
their preparation to be manufactured drugs for section 2(xi)(b). In
entry 35 of the notification dated 14.11.1985, it has been
mentioned that methyl morphine, which is also known as codeine
and ethyl morphine, as well as their salts, will be manufactured
drugs. Apart from this, it is also mentioned that all dilution and
preparation of codeine will also be a manufactured drug, except
the compound having one or more ingredients and containing not
more than 100 mg of drugs (codeine) per dose, that is 5 ml with
concentration not more than 2.5% in undivided preparations with

21
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
further condition that the said preparations have been established
in therapeutic practice. Entry 35 of the notification dated
14.11.1985 is being quoted as under;
“35. Methyl morphine (commonly known as ‘Codeine’) and Ethyle
morphine and their salts (including Dionine), all dilutions and
preparations except those which are compounded with one or more
other ingredients and containing not more than 100 milligrams of the
drug per dosage unit, and with a concentration of not more than 2.5%
in undivided preparations and which have been established in
therapeutic practice. ”
27. Similarly, it is also clear from conjoint reading of Entry 35 of
Notification dated 14.11.1985, Section 2(xvi), 2(xi) and Section
2xiv) of the NDPS Act that all dilutions and preparations of
codeine will be narcotic drugs irrespective of quantity of codeine
except the preparation of codeine or its salt which has been
established (accepted and approved) in therapeutic practice (to
treat or cure a disease) and this preparation does not have
quantity of codeine more than 100 mg per dosage unit and
concentration not more than 2.5%.
28. From the perusal of Entry 35 read with the definition of
manufactured drugs, it is clear that the preparation of codeine is
made with one or more compounds. Still, if it does not contain
more than 100 mg of codeine per dosage unit, has a
concentration of not more than 2.5%, and this preparation has
been established for therapeutic practice. This preparation would
not be a manufactured drug. Therefore, it would also not come
within the definition of narcotic drug, if the same is being dealt
with in the ordinary course of business of medicine and provisions
of NDPS Act would not apply.
29. Government of India, by notification dated 5th May 2015,
notified several narcotic drugs and their preparation (including the
preparation of codeine containing more than permitted quantity of
codeine as essential narcotic drugs for Section 2(viii)(a) of the
NDPS Act for medical and scientific purposes. The notification

22
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
dated 5th May, 2015 of the Government of India is being quoted
as under;
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
(Department of Revenue)
NOTIFICATION
New Delhi, the 5th May, 2015
S.O.1181(E). In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (viiia) of Section
2 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985),
the Central Government hereby notifies for medical and scientific use the
following narcotic drugs to be essential narcotic drugs, namely:
(1) Methyl morphine (commonly known as ‘Codeine’) and Ethyl morphine and
their salts (including Dionine), all dilutions and preparations except those
which are compounded with one or more other ingredients and containing
not more than 100 milligrammes of the drug per dosage unit and with a
concentration of not more than 2.5% in undivided preparations and which
have been established in therapeutic practice;
(2) 1-phenethyl-4-N-propionylanilino-piperidine (the international-non-
proprietary name of which is Fentanyl) and its salts and preparations,
admixtures, extracts or other substances containing any of these drugs;
(3) Dihydrocodeinone (commonly known as Hydrocodone), its salts (such as
Dicodide, Codinovo, Diconone, Hycodan, Multacodin, Nyodide, Ydroced and
the like) and its esters and salts of its esters, and preparations, admixtures,
extracts or other substances containing any of these drugs;
(4) 4:4-diphenyl-6-dimethylamino-heptanone-3 (otherwise known as 6-
dimethyl amino 4: 4 diphenyl-3-heptanone and as Methadone) and its salts
such as (Adanon, Algolysin, Amidone, Amdosan, Butalgin, Depridol,
Diaminon, Dianone, Dolafin, Dolamid, Dolphine, Doriexol, Heptadol,
Heptanal, Hoechst, 10820, Detalgine, Mecodin, Mepection, Mephenon,
Miadone, Moheptal, Physeptone, Psysopeptone, Polamidon, Simoron,
Turnanon and the like) and preparations, admixtures, extracts or other
substances containing any of these drugs;
(5) Morphine and its salts and all preparations containing more than 0.2 per
cent. of Morphine;
(6) Dihydroxy Codeinone (commonly known as 'Oxy-codone and
Dihydroxycodeinone), its salts (such as Eucodal, Boncodal, Dinarcon,
Hydrolaudin, Nucodan, Percodan, Scophedal, Tebodol and the like), its
esters and the salts of its esters and preparations, admixtures, extracts or
other substances containing any of these drugs.
[F. No. N-11011/1/2014-NC-11 (2)]
SATYA NARAYANA DASH, Under Secy.
30. It is relevant to mention here that the Central Government is
empowered by framing rules under Section 9 of the  NDPS Act to
permit and regulate the stock, transport, sale, purchase, use and

23
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
consumption of essential narcotic drugs. At the same time, the
State Government is authorised under Section 10 of the NDPS
Act to frame rules to permit and regulate the stock, transport, sale,
purchase, use, or consumption of manufactured drugs (other than
essential narcotic drugs) and their preparations. Therefore,
essential narcotic drugs can be possessed, transported, sold,
purchased, etc. as per Chapter V-A of NDPS Rules, 1985. It is
also not in dispute that codeine based cough syrup having a
permitted quantity of codeine is not an essential narcotic drug.
31. Therefore, it is undisputedly clear that, if two conditions are
satisfied, one is that the preparation does not have more than 100
mg of codeine or its salt per dose and a concentration of less than
2.5%. Second, the preparation has been established for
therapeutic practice; only then will this preparation not fall under a
narcotic drug. It is not in dispute that all the codeine cough syrups
in the present case have less than 100 ml of codeine and a
concentration of less than 2.5%, and these syrups have been
accepted and approved for therapeutic practice.
32. The expression “established for therapeutic practice” has
been interpreted in the case of Vibhore Rana (supra), wherein the
Court observed that the word ‘established for therapeutic practice’
means that the compound in question has been established to be
a drug in accordance with therapeutic practice and further
observed that expression ‘established for therapeutic practice’
cannot be altered to read as used for therapeutic purpose. Para
41, 42 and 44 of Vibhore Rana (supra) are being quoted as
under:-
“41. The expression “established in therapeutic practice” has not been
interpreted in any previous decision. It is a basic rule of interpretation
that the words used in the statute should be given their simple and
natural meaning and neither any word should be added nor should any
word be ignored while interpreting any provision. When the Government
has used the expression “established in therapeutic practice”, these
words cannot be altered to read it as “used for therapeutic purposes”.

24
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
The phrase “established in therapeutic practice” apparently means that
the compound in question has been established to be a drug in
accordance with the therapeutic practices followed for establishment of
new drugs. Therefore, the submission of Sri. Ashish Pandey that the
drug in question does not fulfil condition no. (2) of having been
“established in therapeutic practice”, is without any force.
42. Moreover, use or misuse of a drug by the end user or consumer of
the same would not have any effect on the law governing the drug.
Phensedyl is a drug covered by the exception contained in Article 35 of
the Notification dated 14-11-1985 issued by the Central Government. It
is not a narcotic drug and hence not covered by the provisions of the
NDPS Act, and merely because some persons may be misusing it for
other than therapeutic purposes, it would not come within the purview of
the NDPS Act. The NDPS Act has been enacted for a specific object,,
and the Authorities under the Act can exercise jurisdiction strictly in
accordance with its provisions. The Authorities under the Act do not
have sweeping powers to take action upon suspicion of any illegality or
irregularity of any sort committed at any place in respect of any
substance. It is settled law that penal statutes must be interpreted
strictly.
44. In view of the foregoing discussion, we hold that in view of the fact
that as per the composition of Phensedyl New Cough Linctus pleaded in
the Writ Petitions, the prescription dosage of Phensedyl Cough Syrup is
5 ml and each dosage unit thereof contains 10 mg of Codeine
Phosphate IP, besides Chlorpheniramine Maleate I.P., Phensedyl New
Cough Linctus contains merely 0.2 % Codeine, and this has not been
disputed and rather has been admitted by the learned Counsel for the
Respondent NCB that there is no dispute that the drug in question fulfils
the first condition for falling within the exception to Entry 35 of the
Notification dated 14-11-1985 issued by the Central Government
containing the list of Narcotic Drugs, i.e. being “compounded with one or
more other ingredients and containing not more than 100 milligrams of
the drug per dosage unit and with a concentration of not more than
2.5% in undivided preparations”, Phensedyl New Cough Linctus is not a
Narcotic Drug and any dealing in this drug would not be subject to the
provisions of the NDPS Act. The search and seizure conducted by the
NCB Officials in Jaunpur on 17-01-2021 was without any authority of
law and so is the complaint filed on 15-07-2021 by the Intelligence
Officer, NCB under Sections 8, 21 ©, 22, 25, 29 and 60 (3) of the NDPS
Act in the Court of Special Judge, NDPS Act at Jaunpur.
33. Expression “established in therapeutic practice” consists of
the words “Established” and “therapeutic practice”. As per Oxford
Dictionary, “Established” means having existed or done something
for a long time and therefore recognised and generally accepted.

25
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
“Therapeutic practice” means Method or professional treatment
used to heal, restore or improve physical, mental or emotional
well-being.
Any word or expression may have different meanings in different
contexts. Therefore, it must be interpreted in light of the reference
or purpose for which it is used.
34. Therefore, the expression “Established in therapeutic practice”
has to be interpreted in reference to medical purpose in the
present case, in view of Section 8(c) of the NDPS Act.
Accordingly, the correct meaning of the expression “established in
therapeutic practice,” as mentioned in Entry 35 of the Central
Government’s notification dated 14.11.1985, is a preparation that
has been fully proven, widely accepted, and routinely used by
doctors to treat or cure a disease or specific health condition,
based on long-term medical proof. Codeine-based cough syrup,
with a permitted quantity of codeine, has been proven effective in
treating cough through several clinical trials and long-term clinical
practice. Over time, this cough syrup has been established in
therapeutic practice to cure cough. Therefore, codeine based
cough syrup, having permitted quantity of codeine, satisfied the
twin conditions to exempt it from the purview of manufactured
drugs.
35. The NDPS Act was enacted for control, regulation and
operation relating to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances
by making stringent provisions. Therefore, the NDPS Act, as well
as the rules and notifications issued thereunder, should be
interpreted as intended by the Legislation.
36. The dealing in drugs and making young people drug addicts is
a crime against society. Therefore, it has to be dealt with, with an
iron hand. The NDPS Act is a special law with the laudable
purpose of combating this menace. This Act aims to prevent

26
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
illegal traffic rather than punish after the offence was committed.
Therefore, the provisions of the NDPS Act must be interpreted
with its object and purpose in mind.  The NDPS Act should be
interpreted literally, not liberally; otherwise, it would frustrate its
basic object. 
37.  Heydon’s Rule, which is also known as the mischief rule of
statutory interpretation, was propounded by the Queen’s Bench in
the Heydon’s case (76 ER 637), wherein it was observed that
while interpreting any law, whether it is penal, restrictive, or
beneficial, the judge should interpret the law considering the
following things.
1. What was the common law before the making of the Act?
2. What was the mischief and defect for which the common law
did not provide?
3. What remedy had Parliament resolved and appointed to cure
the mischief?
4. What was the true reason for the remedy?
38. As per the law propounded in Heydon’s case to interpret a
statute, the Judges should always make such construction as
shall suppress the mischief and advance the remedy, and also to
suppress the subtle inventions and evasions for the continuance
of mischief.
39. The basic purpose of the NDPS Act is to prevent misuse of
narcotic drugs. However, the NDPS Act, as well as notifications
issued thereunder, makes it clear that apart from narcotic drugs,
dealing in their derivatives or preparations may also be
punishable except mixtures or preparations of very small quantity
of narcotic drugs, which could be used only for medicinal purpose
to prevent unnecessary harassment of drug dealers. As already
observed in the foregoing paragraphs, phensedyl and other cough

27
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
syrups, with restricted quantity of codeine, are produced for
therapeutic practice and will not come within the definition of
narcotic drugs. However, the observation in the case of Mohd
Sahabuddin (supra), need to be considered wherein the Hon’ble
Supreme Court observed that if huge quantity of cough syrup is
being transported without any license, then it cannot be treated as
therapeutic practice, because the person transporting in huge
quantity of cough syrup does not have license either under the
Drugs and Cosmetics Act or under the NDPS Act. Therefore, they
cannot be permitted to seek protection of the NDPS Act or the
Drugs and Cosmetics Act. Paragraph Nos. 9, 10, 11 and 12 of
Mohd. Sahabuddin’s case (supra) are being quoted as under;
“ 9. At the very outset, the above said submission of the learned
counsel is liable to be rejected, inasmuch as, the conduct of the
appellants in having transported huge quantity of 347 cartons
containing 100 bottles in each carton of 100 ml Phensedyl cough syrup
and 102 cartons, each carton containing 100 bottles of 100 ml Recodex
cough syrup without valid documents for such transportation cannot be
heard to state that he was not expected to fulfill any of the statutory
requirements either under the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics
Act or under the provisions of the NDPS Act.
10. It is not in dispute that each 100 ml bottle of Phensedyl cough
syrup contained 183.15 to 189.85 mg of codeine phosphate and the
each 100 ml bottle of Recodex cough syrup contained 182.73 mg of
codeine phosphate. When the appellants were not in a position to
explain as to whom the supply was meant either for distribution or for
any licensed dealer dealing with pharmaceutical products and in the
absence of any other valid explanation for effecting the transportation
of such a huge quantity of the cough syrup which contained the
narcotic substance of codeine phosphate beyond the prescribed limit,
the application for grant of bail cannot be considered based on the
above submissions made on behalf of the appellants.
11. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants was that
the content of the codeine phosphate in each 100 ml bottle if related to
the permissible dosage, namely, 5 ml would only result in less than 10
mg of codeine phosphate thereby would fall within the permissible limit
as stipulated in the Notifications dated 14-11-1985 and 29-1-1993. As
rightly held by the High Court, the said contention should have satisfied
the twin conditions, namely, that the contents of the narcotic substance
should not be more than 100 mg of codeine, per dose unit and with a
concentration of not more than 2.5% in undivided preparation apart
from the other condition, namely, that it should be only for therapeutic

28
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
practice. Therapeutic practice as per dictionary meaning means
“contributing to cure of disease”. In other words, the assessment of
codeine content on dosage basis can only be made only when the
cough syrup is definitely kept or transported which is exclusively meant
for its usage for curing a disease and as an action of remedial agent.
12. As pointed out by us earlier, since the appellants had no documents
in their possession to disclose as to for what purpose such a huge
quantity of Schedule H drug containing narcotic substance was being
transported and that too stealthily, it cannot be simply presumed that
such transportation was for therapeutic practice as mentioned in the
Notifications dated 14-11-1985 and 29-1-1993. Therefore, if the said
requirement meant for therapeutic practice is not satisfied then in the
event of the entire 100 ml content of the cough syrup containing the
prohibited quantity of codeine phosphate is meant for human
consumption, the same would certainly fall within the penal provisions
of the NDPS Act calling for appropriate punishment to be inflicted upon
the appellants. Therefore, the appellants’ failure to establish the
specific conditions required to be satisfied under the abovereferred to
notifications, the application of the exemption provided under the said
notifications in order to consider the appellants’ application for bail by
the courts below does not arise.”
40. From the perusal of paragraphs Nos. 9, 10, 11 and 12 of
Mohd. Sahabuddin’s case (supra) as quoted above, it is clear
that, as per the chemical analysis report, the quantity of cough
syrup recovered was above the exempted limit. If cough syrup is
produced in violation of the restricted quantity of codeine, then it
has not been produced for therapeutic purposes. However, in
paragraph 15 of Mohd. Sahabuddin’s case (supra), the Apex
Court observed that where a person has a valid licence and, in
the course of business transactions and deals in pharmaceutical
products containing permitted narcotic substances, violates the
conditions of the licence. Such violations shall be dealt with under
the relevant Act under which the licence was issued.
41. Though different High Courts had dealt with the provision of
codeine syrup having restricted codeine differently. Some High
Courts observed that it is outside the purview of the NDPS Act,
and some observed that transporting a huge quantity of it, for
purposes other than medicinal, also attracts the provisions of the
NDPS Act. Hon’ble Delhi High Court, in the case of Mohd.

29
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
Ahsan’s case (supra) observed that the judgement of the
Allahabad High Court is per incuriam on the ground that codeine-
based cough syrup like phensedyl is an essential narcotic drug in
view of the notification dated 05.05.2015 of the Central
Government, under which the Central Government is empowered
to regulate under Section 9 of the NDPS Act. Para 38, 39, 41, 42,
43 and 45 of Mohd. Ahsan’s case (supra) are quoted as under;
“38. The Division Bench of the High Court of Allahabad in
Vibhor Rana (supra), after examining the aforesaid judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the State of Punjab v. Rakesh Kumar (supra)
has observed:
 “35. However, whether Phensedyl New Cough Linctus, or
any substance containing “Methyl morphine (commonly known as
“Codeine’) and Ethyl morphine and their salts (including Dionine), all
dilutions and preparations except those which are compounded with
one or more other ingredients and containing not more than 100
milligrams of the drug per dosage unit and with a concentration of not
more than 2.5% in undivided preparations and which have been
established in Therapeutic practice.” falls within the exception to item
No. 35 of the Notification dated 14-11-1985 issued by the Government
of India containing the list of narcotic drugs and whether it is a
“Manufactured drug’ and is a “narcotic substance’ was neither raised nor
adjudicated in this case.
   xxx
  38. In both the aforesaid decisions in State of Punjab v.
Rakesh Kumar and Hemant Kumar Saini v. Union of India (Supra), the
question whether or not the offending substances fell within the
definitions of “manufactured drugs” and “narcotic substance” provided in
Sections 2(xi) and 2(xiv) of the NDPS Act, was not decided. However, in
the present case, the composition of the drug has been pleaded
specifically, and the same has not been disputed by the respondents. It
is thus admitted that Phensedyl New Cough Linctus contains Codeine
compounded with one other ingredient, namely Chlorpheniramine
Maleate and contains merely 10 milligrams per dosage unit of 5 ml,
which is not more than 100 milligrams of the drug per dosage unit in
undivided preparations and the concentration of Codeine in Phensedyl
New Cough Linctus is merely 0.2%, which obviously is not more than
2.5%. and the precise question involved in the case is on the basis of
the aforesaid undisputed facts, whether Phensedyl New Cough Linctus
falls within the exception mentioned in entry 35 of the Notification dated
14-11- 1985 or not and consequently, whether the provisions of the
NDPS Act would apply to it or not. Therefore, both the aforesaid
judgments are not relevant for deciding the question involved in the
present Writ Petition.”

30
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
39. It may be noted that in the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Md. Sahabuddin (supra) it had been observed that the twin
conditions in Entry 35, as aforesaid mentioned, would be fulfilled only if
the recovered substance was “being used for therapeutic practice” and
further observed in Para 11 of the said judgment;
“11…Therapeutic practice as per dictionary meaning means
“contributing to cure of disease”. In other words, the assessment of
codeine content on dosage basis can only be made when the cough
syrup is definitely kept or transported, which is exclusively meant for its
usage for curing a disease and as an action of remedial agent.”
41. The aforesaid case of Vibhor Rana (supra) was in the
nature of a writ petition seeking quashing of the complaint case filed by
the NCB, pending before the court of Special Judge NDPS Act and in its
final conclusion the aforesaid division bench has held as under:
“ 44. In view of the foregoing discussion, we hold that in view
of the fact that as per the composition of Phensedyl New Cough Linctus
pleaded in the Writ Petitions, the prescription dosage of Phensedyl
Cough Syrup is 5 ml and each dosage unit thereof contains 10 mg of
Codeine Phosphate IP, besides Chlorpheniramine Maleate I.P.,
Phensedyl New Cough Linctus contains merely 0.2 % Codeine, and this
has not been disputed and rather has been admitted by the learned
Counsel for the Respondent NCB that there is no dispute that the drug
in question fulfils the first condition for falling within the exception to
Entry 35 of the Notification dated 14-11-1985 issued by the Central
Government containing the list of Narcotic Drugs, i.e. being
“compounded with one or more other ingredients and containing not
more than 100 milligrams of the drug per dosage unit and with a
concentration of not more than 2.5% in undivided preparations”,
Phensedyl New Cough Linctus is not a Narcotic Drug and any dealing in
this drug would not be subject to the provisions of the NDPS Act. The
search and seizure conducted by the NCB Officials in Jaunpur on 17-
01-2021 was without any authority of law and so is the complaint filed
on 15-07-2021 by the Intelligence Officer, NCB under Sections 8, 21©,
22, 25, 29 and 60(3) of the NDPS Act in the Court of Special Judge,
NDPS Act at Jaunpur.”
42. The aforesaid judgments, however, have not considered the scope
of Section 9(1)(a)(va) of the NDPS Act which provides as under:
“ 9. Power of Central Government to permit, control and regulate.-
(1) Subject to the provisions of Section 8, the Central Government may,
by rules—
(a) permit and regulate—
xxx

31
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
(va) the manufacture, possession, transport, import inter-State, export
interState, sale, purchase, consumption and use of essential narcotic
drugs:
Provided that where, in respect of an essential narcotic drug, the State
Government has granted licence or permit under the provisions of
Section 10 prior to the commencement of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances (Amendment) Act, 2014, such licence or
permit shall continue to be valid till the date of its expiry or for a period
of twelve months from such commencement, whichever is earlier.
xxx”
43. The aforesaid sub-clause (va) was introduced by the Narcotic Drugs
and Psychotropic Substances (Amendment) Act, 2014 (No. 16 of 2014),
which came into effect on 01.05.2014. The said amendment was
introduced subsequent to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Mohd. Sahabuddin’s case (supra). A bare reading of the said amended
provision shows that the same was introduced in the NDPS Act
authorizing the government to permit and regulate the manufacture,
possession, transport, import interstate, export interstate, sale,
purchase, consumption and use of the “essential narcotic drugs”. The
term ‘essential narcotic drugs’ has not been defined in the NDPS Act.
However, exercising powers under Section 9(1)(a)(va) of the NDPS Act,
the Central Government vide notification dated 05.05.2015 (w.e.f.
05.05.2015) added Chapter-VA to The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Rules 1985 (hereinafter “NDPS Rules”). Rule 52A of the
said Chapter provides as under:
“ 52A. Possession of essential narcotic drug.—(1) No person shall
possess any essential narcotic drug otherwise than in accordance with
the provisions of these rules.
(2) Any person may possess an essential narcotic drug in such quantity
as has been at one time sold or dispensed for his use in accordance
with the provisions of these rules.
(3) A registered medical practitioner may possess essential narcotic
drug, for use in his practice but not for sale or distribution, not more than
the quantity mentioned in the Table below, namely—
TABLE
Sl.
No.
Name of the essential narcotic drug Quantity
(1) (2) (3)
1. Morphine and its salts and all preparations
containing more than 0.2 per cent of
Morphine
500
Milligrammes
2. Methyl morphine (commonly known as
‘Codeine’) and Ethyl morphine and their
salts (including Dionine), all dilutions and
preparations except those which are
compounded with one or more other
ingredients and containing not more than
2000
Milligrammes

32
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
100 milligrammes of the drug per dosage
unit and with a concentration of not more
than 2.5% in undivided preparations and
which have been established in therapeutic
practice
3. Dihydroxy Codeinone (commonly known as
Oxycodone and Dihydroxycodeinone), its
salts (such as Eucodal Boncodal Dinarcon
Hydrolaudin, Nucodan, Percodan,
Scophedal, Tebodol and the like), its esters
and the salts of its ester and preparation,
admixture, extracts or other substances
containing any of these drugs
250
Milligrammes
4. Dihydrocodeinone (commonly known as
Hydrocodone), its salts (such as Dicodide,
Codinovo, Diconone, Hycodan, Multacodin,
Nyodide, Ydroced and the like) and its
esters and salts of its ester, and
preparation, admixture, extracts or other
substances containing any of these drugs
320
Milligrammes
5. 1-phenethyl-4-N-propionylanilino-piperidine
(the international non-proprietary name of
which is Fentanyl) and its salts and
preparations, admixture, extracts or other
substances containing any of these drugs
Two transdermal
patches one
each of 12.5
microgram per
hour and 25
microgram per
hour:
Provided that the Controller of Drugs or any other officer authorised in
this behalf by him may by special order authorise, in Form 3-B, any
such practitioner to possess the aforesaid drugs in quantity larger than
as specified in the above Table:
Provided further that such authorisation may be granted or renewed, for
a period not exceeding three years at a time.
Explanation.—The expression “for use in his practice” covers only the
actual direct administration of the drugs to a patient under the care of
the registered medical practitioner in accordance with established
medical standards and practices.
xxx”
45. A bare perusal of the aforesaid rule clearly shows that the reliance
placed on the same by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner is misplaced. The aforesaid Rule 66 relates to psychotropic
substances and therefore, is not applicable to ‘codeine’ which is
admittedly a ‘narcotic drug’ under the NDPS Act.
42. The above-quoted paragraphs show that the Delhi High Court
in the case of Mohd. Ahsan (supra) incorrectly interpreted
notifications dated 05.05.2015 as well as Rule 52A of NDPS
Rules and treated the codeine cough syrup having permitted

33
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
quantity of codeine as essential narcotic drugs despite clear
exemption thereof. Therefore, with great respect to the Bench that
decided Mohd. Ahsan’s case (supra), it is submitted that the
judgement of the Allahabad High Court in Vibhor Rana’s case
(supra) has meticulously decided the legal issue regarding
manufactured drugs and their exemption. However, it has not
considered Mohd. Sahabuddin’s case, and legal position has
been changed as on date in view of the judgement of the Hon’ble
Apex Court in the case of Raj Kumar Arora (supra).
43. In the present cases, Section 8(c)of the NDPS Act is also
required to be considered, which prohibits dealing with any
narcotic drug or psychotropic substance except for medicinal and
scientific purposes and in the manner as provided in the rules,
orders, as well as conditions of license issued to deal with
narcotic drugs for medicinal and scientific purposes. Section 8 of
the NDPS Act is quoted hereunder;
“ 8. Prohibition of certain operations.— No person shall—
(a) cultivate any coca plant or gather any portion of coca plant; or
(b) cultivate the opium poppy or any cannabis plant; or
(c) produce, manufacture, possess, sell, purchase, transport,
warehouse, use, consume, import inter-State, export inter-State, import
into India, export from India or tranship any narcotic drug or
psychotropic substance, except for medical or scientific purposes and in
the manner and to the extent provided by the provisions of this Act or
the rules or orders made thereunder and in a case where any such
provision imposes any requirement by way of licence, permit or
authorisation also in accordance with the terms and conditions of such
licence, permit or authorisation:
Provided that, and subject to the other provisions of this Act and the
rules made thereunder, the prohibition against the cultivation of the
cannabis plant for the production of ganja or the production,
possession, use, consumption, purchase, sale, transport, warehousing,
import inter-State and export interState of ganja for any purpose other

34
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
than medical and scientific purpose shall take effect only from the date
which the Central Government may, by notification in the Official
Gazette, specify in this behalf.
1[Provided further that nothing in this section shall apply to the export of
poppy straw for decorative purposes.]
44. From a perusal of Section 8(c) of the NDPS Act, it is clear that
if any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance is used for other
than medicinal and scientific purposes and also in violation of
rules or orders made under the NDPS Act, then the same would
be punishable under the NDPS Act. Codeine based cough syrup
(like Phensedyl, Eskuf)has been excluded from the purview of
manufactured drugs as well as from the essential narcotic drugs,
as the same contains the permitted quantity of codeine or its salt
and is produced for therapeutic practice. For such codeine-based
cough syrup, the license is issued under the Drugs and Cosmetics
Act, not the NDPS Act. Therefore, a valid licence holder can sell,
transport, purchase or store the codeine cough syrup containing
the permitted quantity of codeine as mentioned in Entry 35 of the
notification dated 14.11.1985.  In case of any violation, the
concerned drug licence holder will be prosecuted under the Drugs
and Cosmetics Act. However, if a person or firm does not have
any license to deal with such codeine cough syrup and still deals
in stock, sale, transport, etc. of this syrup, then he will not be
entitled to the benefit of exemption given under Entry 35 of the
notification dated 14.11.1985. Similarly, even if a person has a
license to deal with codeine-based cough syrup having a
permitted quantity of codeine, if he possesses, sells, or transports
the same for the purpose of intoxication because of its codeine
content, then that person will also not be entitled to get the benefit
of the exemption given under Entry 35 of the notification dated
14.11.1985.
45. So far as the contention of Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned
Additional Advocate General, that in the Mohd. Sahabuddin’s

35
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
case (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that the word
‘therapeutic practice’ is contributing to the cure of the disease;
therefore, cough syrup should be definitely kept or transported
exclusively for the use of curing a disease, and as an action of a
remedial agent; therefore, codeine cough syrup used for any other
purpose would attract the provision of the NDPS Act. It is clear
from the above judgment that, in respect to the person who does
not have any valid license and is still transporting a huge quantity
of codeine syrup, that cannot be treated as being for therapeutic
purpose and further observed in paragraph no. 15 that if the
person who has a valid license and, in the course of their
business transaction, was dealing with the prescribed permitted
quantity of narcotic, then for violation thereof, they are entitled to
get relief. The observation of the Hon’ble Apex Court relates only
to the person who does not have any license and still deals with
the cough syrup, even if having the permitted quantity of codeine,
as the same would be considered for a purpose other than
therapeutic as required by Entry 35 of the Notification dated
14.11.1985 to get its exemption from drugs. It is further clear from
the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court that the Apex Court has
interpreted the ‘therapeutic practice’, not the “established in
therapeutic practice”; therefore, the observations of the Apex
Court in the case of Mohd. Sahabuddin’s case (supra) can be said
to be obiter dictum so far as the term “established therapeutic
practice” is concerned and was in reference to the different facts
and circumstances.
46. However, the question arises whether the codeine cough
syrup like New Phensedyl, though itself does not fall in the
manufactured drug being having permitted quantity of codeine, is
transported or sold in violation of the drug licence for the purpose
of using it as intoxicant not for medicinal use, would still not attract
provision of NDPS Act?

36
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
47. Section 8 of NDPS Act specifically prohibits the dealing in any
narcotic drug or psychotropic substance except for medicinal or
scientific purpose. Similarly, Section 21 of the NDPS Act provide
punishment for dealing in manufactured drug or any preparation
containing any manufactured drug. The codeine is manufactured
drug within the meaning of Section 2(XI) and 2(XVI)(c) of NDPS
Act.
48. The Government of India in exercise of power under Section
2(vii-a), Section 2(xxiii)(a) of NDPS Act, has issued notification
dated 19.10.2001, wherein the codeine has been mentioned at Sl.
No. 23 as the narcotic drug and  Note-2 of this notification
provides that the preparation of the above drugs, which includes
codeine, shall also be considered as narcotic drug and further in
Note-4 of this notification provides, while measuring the quantity
of narcotic drugs, entire mixture is to be taken into consideration
instead of just actual drug contained therein. The codeine base
syrup having permitted quantity of codeine has been excluded
from the definition of manufactured drug, subject to condition that
it is prepared only for therapeutic practice, which means to cure
the disease, as interpreted by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case
of Mohd. Sahabuddin (supra).
49. From the perusal of the above mentioned sections of NDPS
Act as well as notification dated 19.10.2001 issued by
Government of India, it is clear that not only codeine but also its
preparation is a narcotic drug and same is punishable u/s 21 of
the NDPS Act. Therefore, if the codeine preparation is exempted
from being a manufactured drug for using the same as medicine,
if having a permitted quantity of codeine, it would be outside the
exemption if the same is stored, transported or used for
intoxication, not for medicinal purpose. Such cases dealing with
such codeine preparation will not be treated as codeine based

37
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
cough syrup having permitted quantity of codeine but simply a
codeine preparation which is a narcotic drug.
50. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Raj Kumar Arora’s case
(supra) observed that unnecessary benefit of exception under
NDPS Act should not be given to a person who misuses the
narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances merely because drugs
can potentially be used for medicinal or scientific purposes. Paras
no. 60, 61, 98, 102.6, 102.7 and 102.15 (xv) of Raj Kumar Arora’s
case (supra) are being quoted as under;
“ 60. It is just not enough to prove or establish that the narcotic drug or
psychotropic substance is capable of being used for a medical or
scientific purpose. That would give unnecessary leeway to persons to
indiscriminately deal with narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances
under the garb that they could also be potentially used for medical or
scientific purposes. Moreover, several of these drugs and substances
are inherently of such a nature that they have widespread medicinal
and scientific applications. Therefore, an expansive interpretation of
the exception that the mere potential for usage of the narcotic drug or
psychotropic substance, for medical or scientific purpose, is sufficient
would run counter to the object of the Act which seeks to act as a
deterrent to the widespread dealing in narcotic drugs and psychotropic
substances. What must, therefore, be proved to take the benefit of the
exception is that the narcotic drug or psychotropic substances was
being dealt in for a specified and real medical or scientific purpose, in
the manner and to the extent provided by the provisions of the Act, the
rules and orders made thereunder and, in case such provisions
imposes any requirement by way of licence, permit or authorisation, in
accordance with the terms and conditions of such licence, permit or
authorisation.
61. Therefore, if any psychotropic substance mentioned in the
Schedule to the Act is being dealt with for a purpose other than
medical or scientific purposes, an offence under Section 8(c) of the
NDPS Aut would be made out. Furthermore, if any psychotropic
substance mentioned in the Schedule to the Act is being dealt with for
a medical or scientific purpose, but not in accordance with other
provisions of the Act, rules, orders or, the terms and conditions of the
licence, permit or authorisations, if any, then also, an offence under
Section 8(c) of the NDPS Act could be said to have been made out. It
is only when the exception is complied with entirely or wholly, that an
accused can lay claim to the benefit provided under the said provision.
98. In P. Ramanatha Aiyar's Advanced Law Lexicon, the word
derogation is defined as "the partial repeal or abrogation of a law by a
later act that limits as scope or impates its utility and force" It is also
stated that the word "derogate" is a term of legislation. "Derogation" is

38
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
partial and indirect abrogation i.c., when a subsequent law reduces
the force and application of an older law, the character of the
subsequent law is technically said to be derogatory. Therefore, the
express language employed herein which states that the NDPS Act is
not in derogation of the D&C Act leads to the inference that the
enactment of the NDPS Act must not in any way be understood to
take away the scope of an offence being also made out under the
D&C Act. Furthermore, it is also stated that the provisions of the
NDPS Act and its Rules "shall be in addition to the D&C Act or the
Rules made thereunder. Therefore, in the reverse scenario, i.e., when
an offence under the D&C Act is made out or can potentially be made
out, the accused can also be charged or prosecuted for-an offence
under the NDPS Act. Any argument to the contrary would be
untenable. This is so because the NDPS Act applies in addition to the
provisions of the D&C Act. Inevitably, there may arise situations
wherein the substance in question in a particular case falls under the
ambit of both the NDPS Act and D&C Act. However, the overlap would
not necessarily imply that the application of the provisions of the
NDPS Act would be at the cost of exclusion of the provisions of D&C
Act, or vice versa. Section 80 of the NDPS Act must be understood in
the context and object behind the coming into force of these two
legislation i.e., the NDPS Act and D&C Act respectively, and the
distinct purposes that they seek to achieve.
102.6. The manufacture of all psychotropic substances mentioned
under the Schedule to the Act, and those mentioned under Schedule I
to the Rules (provided they are manufactured only for the purposes
elaborated under Chapter VII-A), in violation of the conditions of
licence of manufacture issued under the D&C Act and its Rules would
amount to a contravention of Rule 65 of the NDPS Rules and thereby
Section 8 of the NDPS Act itself. In other words, due to the operation
of Rule 65, a violation of the condition of licence under the D&C Act
read with its Rules would ipso facto tantamount to a violation of the
NDPS Act read with its Rules.
102.7. Furthermore, no person shall possess any psychotropic
substance, including those mentioned only under the Schedule to the
Act for any of the purposes covered by the D&C Rules, unless he is
lawfully authorised to possess such substance for any of the said
purposes under the NDPS Rules. Therefore, Schedule I substances
can be possessed only for the purposes mentioned under Chapter VII-
A. All other substances mentioned only under the Schedule to the Act
can be possessed for the purposes mentioned under Chapter VII-A
and also for the purposes falling under the broad umbrella of “medical
or scientific purposes” as mentioned under Section 8 of the NDPS Act.
The above is in addition to the fulfillment of the requirements under
the D&C Rules.
102.15. (xv). Section 80 states that the provisions of the NDPS Act or
the Rules made thereunder shall be in addition to, and not in
derogation of the D&C Act and the Rules made thereunder. Therefore,

39
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
when an offence under the D&C Act is made out or can potentially be
made out, the accused can also be charged or prosecuted for an
offence under the NDPS Act or vice-versa. The object sought to be
achieved under both the legislations is also distinct i.e. the NDPS Act
is a special law enacted to regulate the operations relating to narcotic
drugs and psychotropic substances with a view to curb and penalise
the usage of drugs by persons for intoxication etc., whereas the D&C
Act was enacted to prevent substandard, adulterated and spurious
drugs from entering the medical market and to maintain high
standards in medical treatment. Hence, offences under both the
enactments can also be said to have been constituted simultaneously,
where the circumstances so require.
51. From the judgement of Raj Kumar Arora (supra), it is also
clear that the violation of the condition of license issued under
Drugs and Cosmetics Act and its rule regarding the narcotic drug
or psychotropic substance would amount to contravention of
Section 8 of NDPS Act itself. In such circumstances, apart from
proceeding under Drugs and Cosmetics Act, prosecution under
NDPS Act will also be permissible.
52. In view of the above discussion, for claiming the exemption
under Entry 35 of the notification dated 14.11.1985 of Government
of India, the drug license holder must show that the conditions of
licence and other statutory requirements regarding the use of
codeine based cough syrup for medicinal purposes have been
substantially complied with. Therefore, in case the preparation of
codeine (cough syrup) exempted from the definition of
‘manufactured drug’ is widely misused by transporting, stocking or
sale for the purpose of using it as an intoxicant, in that case,
benefit of exemption under Entry no. 35 will not be applicable, in
view of the judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Raj Kumar Arora’s case (supra).
53. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Hira Singh (supra) has
observed that while determining the quantity of narcotic or
psychotropic substance, the weight of the entire mixture has to be
taken into consideration. Paras no. 12.2 of Hira Singh’s case is
being quoted as under—

40
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
“12.2. In case of seizure of mixture of narcotic drugs or psychotropic
substances with one or more neutral substance(s), the quantity of
neutral substance(s) is not to be excluded and to be taken into
consideration along with actual content by weight of the offending
drug, while determining the “small or commercial quantity” of the
narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances.”
54. Therefore, in view of the law laid down in  Hira Singh’s
judgment (supra) as well as note- 4 of the notification dated
19.10.2001 issued by the Government of India, the entire weight
of mixture/ preparation containing the narcotic drug/psychotropic
substance is to be considered as a whole for the purpose of
determining whether the recovered quantity is small or
commercial quantity undre the NDPS Act. In such cases, as
discussed above, if the total quantity of codeine recovered in the
form of codeine-based cough syrup is found to be above 1 kg,
which is a commercial quantity as per the table attached to the
NDPS Act, the embargo under section 37 of the NDPS Act would
be attracted.
55. Therefore, this Court decides the questions raised above in
the following manner;
In view of the above analysis, this Court decides the questions
raised above in the following manner:
Question No. 1: Whether the codeine-based cough syrup having
the permitted quantity of codeine as mentioned in Entry 35 of the
Notification dated 14.11.1985 would attract the provisions of the
NDPS Act if the same has been sold or transported by the drug
licence holder to another drug licence holder or any person for
medicinal purposes.
Answer No. 1: Codeine-based cough syrup having permitted
quantity of codeine as per Notification dated 14.11.1985 and
Notification dated 02.05.2001 of the Central Government will not
be treated as a narcotic substance, so long as it is sold or
transported for medicinal use.

41
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
Question No. 2: Whether the codeine-based cough syrup having
the permitted quantity of codeine, though produced as a cough
suppressant, but transported, sold or stored for the purpose (like
intoxication) other than medicinal use, would attract the provisions
of the NDPS Act.
Answer No. 2: Codeine-based cough syrup having permitted
quantity of codeine, manufactured or produced as a cough
suppressant, if stocked, sold or transported for other purposes
(like intoxication) instead of medicinal use, would be treated as a
codeine preparation under the category of Manufactured drug and
would attract the provisions of the NDPS Act. The entire mixture
of syrup shall be treated as codeine in view of the judgment of the
Hon’ble Apex Court in Hira Singh’s case (supra).
56. However, in view of the question answered as above, it is
clarified that if any drug retailer/medical store sells codeine based
cough syrup (having permitted quantity of codeine) during routine
sale without medical prescription, then it would be treated as a
violation of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, not the NDPS Act, unless
huge quantity of such cough syrup is sold within very short span
of time, which clearly indicates the knowledge of drug retailer
regarding its use other than medicinal or scientific purpose.
57. Before proceeding to decide the bail applications, it would be
appropriate to mention that at the stage of consideration of regular
bail to undertake a meticulous examination of legality of
commercial transactions or to record definitive findings on the
basis of competing claims which is to be tested during trial.
58. In cases involving alleged diversion through layered business
arrangements or intermediary entities, the Court is required to
adopt a cautious approach, as complex offences pertaining to

42
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
narcotics, often employ structured transactions or shell
arrangements to distance principal actors from the physical
recovery of contraband.
Now coming to the merits of all the bail applications.
59. Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 418 of 2026 (Bhola Prasad vs
State of U.P.).
1. Instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to released
the applicant on bail during the trial in Case Crime No.-1191 of
2025, under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) & 61(2)(a) of the
BNS-2023 & Section 27a/29 of the Narcotics Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station- Robertsganj,
District- Sonbhadra.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant Mr. G.S. Chaturvedi, Senior
Advocate has submitted that the FIR was lodged with the
allegation that, on receiving information, the drug authorities
inspected the premises of M/s Maa Kripa Medical as well as M/s
Shivichha Pharma in Sonbhadra. They found that, though the
firms have a license under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act still, they
did not have any document to purchase the New Phensedyl
cough syrup from Saili Traders, Ranchi, Jharkhand, which is a
proprietorship concern of Bhola Prasad. The neighbours where
the two shops were situated also informed that these shops were
occasionally opened. The landlord also stated that he let out the
shops in question to Maa Kripa Medical and Shivichha Pharma.
The proprietor of Maa Kripa Medical, Sri Satyam Kumar, and the
proprietor of Shivichha Pharma, Sri Vijay Gupta, informed the
authorities that they purchased 7,53,000 bottles of New
Phensedyl cough syrup, 100 ml each, from Saili Traders between
01.04.2024 and 23.08.2025.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the
applicant is proprietor of Saili Traders, which is a licensed super

43
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
stockist under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. He sold 7,53,000
bottles of the New Phensedyl cough syrup to the firm Maa Kripa
Medical as well as Shivichha Pharma. There is no prescribed limit
on the quantity of this cough syrup that a super stockist can
purchase, sell or stock. It is further submitted that, as per Rule
28A of the Drugs (Price Control) Orders, 2013, issued under the
Essential Commodities Act, a super stockist cannot refuse to sell
the drugs to any stockist/dealer; such refusal would be a
punishable offence u/s 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.
Learned counsel further submitted for the applicant that the State
Government had issued an Office Memorandum dated
15.08.2022 prescribing the quantities which any dealer or stockist
can store and sell. However, that office memorandum did not
provide any limit for the super stockist to store or sell drugs.
Subsequently the Allahabad High Court stayed that office
memorandum in Writ Petition No. 3749 of 2023 dated 15.02.2023,
and the stay continues. It is further submitted that Sections 27(a)
and 29 of the NDPS Act have been invoked against the applicant
though, there is no evidence that New phensedyl syrup sold by
the applicant to the co-accused or any other firm was used by any
person as an intoxicant. It is also submitted that though ‘codeine’
is a contraband under the NDPS Act, codeine-based syrup is not
contraband. It is further submitted that Entry 35 of Notification
dated 14.11.1985 issued u/s 2(xi)(b) of NDPS Act, 1985 declares
manufactured drugs where a narcotic drug mixes with another
drug and has a concentration of more than 2.5% in 100 ml of
preparation. However, in the New phensedyl syrup, there is only
0.2% codeine; therefore, it will not come within the definition of a
manufactured drug. He further submitted that between 01.04.2024
and 23.08.2025, the applicant’s firm purchased 3,87,000 bottles,
each of 100 ml of phensedyl from manufacturer ‘Appt Health Care
Company’ and sold them to different license holders. It is also
submitted that after selling the aforesaid bottles to the co-accused

44
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
Maa Kripa Medical as well as Shivichha Pharma, proper GST bill
was also issued, and duty for transporting the same was of the
purchasing firm, not of the applicant’s firm.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant also submitted that the
applicant is a wholesale drug supplier being a licence holder
issued in Form 21-B under Rule 61(2) of the Drug Rules, and this
licence was valid from 06.10.2023 to 05.10.2028. The applicant
was authorised to sell, stock or exhibit the drugs specified in
Schedule-C and Schedule-C1, and another licence was issued in
Form-20B, entitling him to sell, purchase or stock all drugs
including codeine -based cough syrup like New Phensedyl. It is
further submitted that at the time of selling all the Phensedyl syrup
in question, the applicant was having a valid licence therefore the
sale is deemed to be valid. The Drug Department had cancelled
the licence of the applicant on 12.11.2025, which is after the
registration of the FIR.
5. It is further submitted that though the State is alleging the sale
of New Phensedyl cough syrup in violation of the condition of the
drug licence of the applicant but till date the State has not filed
any complaint under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act for the violation
of the condition of the licence under the Act and Rules therein.
6. It is further submitted that during investigation, statements of
the owners of truck numbers MH-04-HP-2911 and NL-03-A-4157
were also recorded, wherein they have stated that they loaded
medicines from the godown of Saili Traders, Ranchi, Jharkhand
and transported them up to the godown at Varanasi. Thereafter,
the other parties took delivery from the Varanasi godown, but
none of them stated the exact names of the medicines loaded in
the truck from the godown of Saili Traders. Mr Gopal Chaturvedi
further submitted that even the owner of Maa Kamakhya Air
Cargo has clearly stated that he transported the New Phensedyl
syrup from Ranchi up to Varanasi godown and the e-way bill

45
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
destination was mentioned as Varanasi and he was charged up to
Varanasi; subsequently, the delivery of the same was taken by a
different person from Varanasi. Therefore, these statements
contain no incriminating material against the applicant.
7. It is further submitted that there is no evidence regarding the
allegation that the applicant has diverted the Phensedyl cough
syrup instead of sending it to Sonebhadra. It is also submitted
that, as to the allegation of using two different Aadhaar Cards, the
correct fact is that, while applying for the drug license and while
registering the proprietorship for GST, the applicant provided an
Aadhaar Card with a Ranchi address. Thereafter, GST registration
was issued on 20.09.2023, and the drug licence was also issued
on 06.10.2023. After obtaining GST registration, the applicant
opened a bank account in Varanasi in his name, based on his
Aadhaar card showing his Varanasi address, as he had shifted to
Varanasi. Therefore, the applicant has not committed any forgery
in the Aadhaar card because the applicant's name and father’s
name were the same, except for the change in address upon
shifting from Jharkhand to Varanasi. It is also submitted that the
GST registration application and the drug license also mentioned
the business address as Ranchi.
8. It is further submitted that it is specifically pleaded in
paragraph-28 of the bail application that the applicant was having
a valid licence at the time of selling the Phensedyl in question and
the State did not deny this fact in its Counter Affidavit.
9. Learned Additional Advocate General vehemently opposed the
prayer and submitted that New Phensedyl cough syrup bottles
containing 0.2% codeine cannot be sold in the open market. A
drug-licensed dealer or retailer can sell it on a medical
prescription or to another drugs license dealer/retailer to deal with
it for medicinal purposes. The drug-licensed firms Maa Kripa
Medical and Shivichha Pharma were found to be non-existent, as

46
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
they were not engaged in any business; they could not produce
any purchase documents for phensedyl cough syrup, and they
obtained the license from the drug authority based on forged
documents. He further submitted that during the investigation, the
police also found that the present applicant, Bhola Prasad, was
also involved in diverting the New phensedyl bottles in violation of
the Drugs Rules as well as the NDPS Act.
10. The learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that
though it has been shown that the applicant-firm has transferred
3,66,000/bottles for Rs. 5,39,92,728/ to Maa Kripa Medical,
Sonbhadra, and 3,87,000 bottles for Rs. 6,06,48,438/-, thereafter,
these two firms (hereinafter will be referred as B-layer firms)
further sold the entire stock of Phensedyl to C-layer firms, i.e.,
Dilip Medical, Bhadohi, Ayush Enterprises, Bhadohi, and Sanaya
Medical. He further submitted that whatever amount the C-layer
firms transferred to the B-layer firm's account, the entire amount
was then credited to the applicant firm's account. During the
investigation, the police also found that the C-layer firms did not
receive any consignment of Phensedyl cough syrup as allegedly
sold by the B-layer firm, nor did they have any documents to show
receipt of the same or its sale to any other person. Despite this,
the three C-layer firms transferred huge amounts to the B-layer
firm's account, and subsequently, the B-layer firms transferred
those amounts to the applicant’s firm. AAG Mr Trivedi further
submitted that a huge amount was deposited in the accounts of
the C-layer firms, including cash deposited by different persons
who were not dealing in the business of medicines, but were
selling flowers or plastic items.
11. The learned AAG also submitted that three persons, namely,
Amit Jaiswal, Prashant Kumar and Shubham Jaiswal, are
competent persons of Saili Traders, and they have further issued
experience certificates to different persons to open fake firms

47
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
dealing in medicines without any actual business. The applicant
has explained only 3 cases out of the 7 criminal cases registered
against the applicant at the time of filing the present bail
application. Therefore, the bail application also deserves to be
rejected on this ground, in view of the mandatory provision
contained in Chapter XVIII, Rule 18(7) of the Allahabad High
Court Rules, 1952.
12. Mr Anoop Trivedi, learned Additional Advocate General
representing the State, has submitted that E.D. also recovered
signed blank cheques of 63 medicine firms including M/s. Maa
Kripa Medical and M/s. Shivichha Pharma from the office of the
applicant, and panchnama was duly executed in the presence of
two private witnesses, which is also part of the case diary. This
shows that the present applicant was actually controlling the firm
Maa Kripa Medical and M/S. Shivichha Pharma, though they were
registered in the names of the applicant's men, who are residents
of Varanasi. Mr Trivedi further submitted that the e-way bills
recovered from the firm of the applicant show that the
consignment of Phensedyl was to be delivered at Sonebhadra to
Maa Kripa Medical and M/s. Shivichha Pharma, but as per the toll
plaza traceability, nothing was transported to Sonebhadra;
instead, it was transported to Varanasi, from where it was further
transported to different places to deal in the illegal practice of
intoxicants. Above facts show that the applicant was running a
syndicate to sell codeine-based cough syrup in the open market
so that it could be used as an intoxicant instead of a medicine
13. The learned Additional Advocate General further submitted
that, from the statement of Tayyab (the truck driver of UP-16-
KT-5144, mentioned in E-way bill generated for transporting the
bottles of New Phensedyl from the applicant’s firm to Sonebhadra
for Maa Kripa Medical and M/s. Shivichha Pharma), it is evident
that the applicant transported cough syrups from Ranchi to a

48
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
godown at Varanasi, and then by truck from Varanasi to Dhanbad.
After unloading the cough syrup at Dhanbad, the truck was
reloaded with scrap, which was delivered to a paper mill in
Ramnagar. This indicates that the Phensedyl, which was
supposed to be transferred to Sonebhadra, was instead unlawfully
transported to other locations via Dhanbad. The learned
Additional Advocate General also submitted that several bottles of
Phensedyl, purchased by the applicant’s firm and meant for
transfer to Sonebhadra, were recovered in Purnia district, Bihar.
Furthermore, it was submitted that the Experience Certificate and
other documents on which the applicant obtained the drug licence
in the name of Saili Traders were found to be forged.
Consequently, the licence was cancelled because the address
and phone number were incorrect, in addition to the Experience
Certificate. It was also submitted that Phensedyl bottles
purchased by the applicant’s firm from its manufacturer and
allegedly sold to different firms, were recovered in Siliguri and
Agartala, even though the e-way bills indicated that these bottles
were to be sent to Sonebhadra.
14. It was further submitted by learned Additional Advocate
General that the competent person of the firm of the applicant,
Shubham Jaiswal, used to supply the Phensedyl syrup to
Bangladesh to one Zubair Husain Shekh, who admitted this fact in
his statement.  During investigation, several non-existing
proprietorship firms were found in District Bhadohi, such as
Rajendra Sons, whose proprietor is Anshika Gupta, wife of Vijay
Kumar Gupta, who was the proprietor of Shivichha Pharma
situated at Sonebhadra. It is further submitted that the firms
Dileep Medical and Ayush Enterprises, which are alleged to have
received the consignment of Phensedyl from Maa Kripa Medical
and M/s. Shivichha Pharma, were found to be fictitious, not
engaged in any trade or business, and did not show any
documents for further transporting the new Phensedyl cough

49
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
syrups purchased from Maa Kripa Medical and M/S. Shivichha
Pharma, and same person Dileep Kumar was the proprietor of
both these firms. He further submitted that the third firm, Sanaya
Medical, was being run by Zeenat Bano, to whom the Experience
Certificate was given by none other than the proprietor of Dileep
Medical and Ayush Enterprises. It is further submitted that several
materials in the case diary show that the applicant's proprietorship
concern was involved in transporting New Phensedyl cough syrup
to forged firms at Mughalsarai, Varanasi, Ghazipur and Jaunpur.
15. In reply to the aforesaid submissions of the State, Sri Gopal
Swarup Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate for the applicant,
has submitted that the statements relied upon by learned
Additional Advocate General are not admissible in the present
case, as the investigating agency recorded these statements in
different case crime numbers. It is further submitted that merely
changing the address in the Aadhaar Card will not make it forged,
as alleged by the State. He further submitted that the drug licence
of the applicant was not cancelled on the ground that he used a
forged Aadhaar Card, but on the ground that the applicant was
involved in the offence under the NDPS Act. It is also submitted
by learned Senior Advocate that there is no illegality in forming the
proprietorship concern in the name of relatives, as the same is
valid to get the tax benefit.
16. It is also submitted that the allegation of the State that the firm
of Layer-B did not have any godown, where Maa Kripa Medical
and M/s. Shivichha Pharma are concerned, is also misconceived,
as for dealing in the business of dealership of any goods, there is
no requirement to establish a godown, as after taking delivery, the
same has been sold to other firms through the same transport. It
is further submitted that the applicant has not recovered any
illegally transported syrup from the firm Maa Kripa Medical and
M/S. Shivichha Pharma, or of the cough syrup transferred by Maa

50
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
Kripa Medical and M/s. Shivichha Pharma to other firms.
Therefore, there is no evidence that the applicant is involved in
the illegal practice of supplying the codeine based cough syrup for
intoxication rather than for the medical purpose for which
Phensedyl is produced. It is lastly submitted that the blank signed
cheques recovered from the firm of the applicant were security
cheques given by Maa Kripa Medical and M/S. Shivichha Pharma
to firms involved in business dealings with the applicant.
17. I have considered the submissions of counsel for the rival
parties and perused the record.
18. It is not in dispute that the applicant is proprietor of Saili
Traders, Ranchi (Jharkhand) and one Shubham Jaiswal, who is
also son of the applicant is competent person of Saili Traders and
applicant’s proprietorship concern also has license under drugs
and cosmetics Act as super stockist of medicines. The firm of the
applicant can stock, transport or sale the medicines to others drug
dealers. This fact is also not in dispute that the firm of the
applicant sold 3,66,000/- bottles of new phensedyl cough syrup to
Maa Kripa Medical, Sonbhadra and 3,87,000/- bottles of new
phensedyl cough syrup to M/s. Shivichha Pharma, Sonbhadra. E-
way bill was also generated for transporting of above consignment
from Saili Traders to above firms situated at Sonbhadra. It is also
admitted to both the parties that the 100 ml bottles of new
phynsedyl cough syrup contains each: (1) Codeine Phosphate- 10
mg, (2) Chlorpheniramine maleate- 4mg and entire mixtures is in
the form of syrup. Therefore, new phensedyl cough syrup is
codeine preparation which has permitted quantities of codeine as
per the Entry 35 of the Notification of Central Government dated
14.11.1985.
19. The purchasers of M/S Maa Kripa Medical and Shivichha
Pharma have admitted to purchase the new phensedyl cough
syrup total 7,53,000/- bottles of new phensedyl cough syrup but at

51
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
the time of inspection both the firms could not produce any
documents showing any purchase order or receipt of receiving of
the consignment at Sonbhadra and both the proprietorship firms
also admitted to sell the entire stock of purchased new phensedyl
as mentioned above to Dileep Medical, Bhadohi, Ayush
Enterprises, Bhadohi and Sanaya Medical, Bhadohi. It is clear
that M/S Maa Kripa Medical and Shivichha Pharma after receiving
the sale consideration of 7,53,000 bottles from Dileep Medical,
Ayush Enterprise and Sanaya Medical, transferred the entire
amount except keeping of Rs.25000, with him.
20. The material in the case diary shows that Dileep Medical,
Ayush Enterprises and Sanaya Medical did not further sell the
aforesaid purchased phensedyl bottles nor they had stock of the
purchased bottles of cough syrup and huge cash amount was
deposited in the account of these three firms by different persons,
who were found to be not concerned with the business of
medicines. Some of them were having shops of plastic articles
and beauty parlors etc. The fact of non-receiving of consignment
of purchased phensedyl bottles at Sonbhadra at the shop of M/s
Maa Kripa Medical and M/S Shivichha Pharma have also denied
by landlord of two shops and it is also not in dispute that the both
the firms Maa Kripa and Shivichha Pharma did not have any
godown except two shops. Transporter/owner of the trucks
mentioned in the E-Way Bill regarding transporting the 7,53,000/-
of phensedyl cough syrup from Saili Traders to Sonbhadra also
denied the transporting the same at Sonebhadra. It was also
found that actually huge stock of new phensedyl cough syrup
bottles was transported from Ranchi to Varanasi as well as
Ranchi to Dhanbad and subsequently large stock of bottles sold
by the applicant to Maa Kripa and Shivichha Pharma was
recovered by the police in Purnia district of Bihar during illegal
transportation and co-accused Jubai Hussain was arrested in
Bihar while involving in illegal transporting of new phensedyl

52
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
bottles admitted the fact that he received consignment of codeine
cough syrup at the instruction of applicant’s firm for transporting
to Bangladesh for intoxication. Though confessional statement is
generally not admissible but in view of the judgement of the Apex
Court in the case of Baburao Bajirao Patil vs State of
Maharashtra; 1971 (3) SCC 432 as well as in the case of
Devender Pal Singh vs State of N.C.T. of State of Delhi; 2002(5)
SCC 234, confessional statement, if proved ,is relevant in the
conspiracy under Section 30 of the Evidence Act. It was also
revealed that Enforcement Director while raiding the
proprietorship of the applicant has also recovered several blank
signed cheques of Maa Kripa and Shivichha Pharma. It is clear
from the case diary that the landlord of the shop of Maa Kripa and
Shivichha Pharma both the firm never stocked any medicine and
he never found any unloading or loading the medicine from the
shop of these two firms. It is also clear from the material available
in case diary that the firm Maa Kripa and Shivichha Pharma could
not produce any document regarding sale and purchase of
medicines, which shows that these firms are running on paper
without actual business. Above fact shows that the transportation
of 5,53,000 bottles of new phensedyl cough syrup was prima facie
appears to be diverted and then transported for the purpose other
than medicinal use. Apart from the present case applicant’s
proprietorship concern also found to be involved in diversion and
transporting the codeine based syrup in huge quantity in other
cases also.
21. This Court already observed in the preceding paragraphs of
the judgment that if huge quantity of codeine cough syrup is sold
or transported for any other purpose then the medicinal use then it
should be treated as narcotic drug being codeine preparation and
he will not be entitled to get the benefit of exemption granted
Entry 35 of the notification dated 14.11.1985 and same would be

53
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
punishable under NDPS Act. Apart from this applicant has not
explained the criminal history of four cases.
22. In view of above, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the
applicant. Therefore, his bail application is rejected.
60. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.44015 of 2025 (Brijmohan
Shivhare Vs. State of U.P.) and No.13162 of 2026 (Ram Gopal
Dhakad Vs. State of U.P.)
1. Heard Sri Amit Krishna, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri
Sukram Pal, learned counsel for the applicant in Criminal Misc.
Bail Application No.44015 of 2025 and Ms Pratibha Jaiswal,
learned counsel for the applicant in Bail Application No.13162 of
2026, and Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned AAG for the State.
2. Both the bail applications are in the same case crime number
and have common facts. These bail applications have been filed
with a prayer to release the applicants on bail during the trial in
Case Crime No.1054 of 2025, under Sections8/21/27a/29 NDPS
Act and Section 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(2), 340(2), 61(2)(ka)
BNS, Police Station- Robartsganj, District Sonbhadra.
3. As per the prosecution story, two trucks bearing registration No.
RG-11JC-1710 and MH-46AR-6826 were intercepted and
checked by the police at Sonbhadra, where police found
corrugated cardboard boxes carrying chips and namkeen in the
trucks. However,  upon opening the cardboard boxes, police also
found, Eskuf Cough syrups bottles of 100ml each, concealed
between packets of chips and namkeen. In both trucks, police
found 1,19,675 bottles of Eskuf Cough Syrups manufactured by
Laborate Pharmaceuticals India Ltd. The driver of the Truck
bearing No. RG-11JC-1710, Hemant Pal, as well as the owner of
the truck, namely Brijmohan Shivhare and the driver of the truck
bearing No. MH46AR6826, Ram Gopal Dhakard, were arrested.

54
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
4. Sri Amit Krishna, Senior Advocate for the applicant (Brij Mohan
Shivhare), in Bail Application No.44015 of 2025, has submitted
that there is no dispute that the applicant is the owner of both the
trucks and that both the trucks were carrying packed cartons of
JR Rice India Private Limited, Naya Bazar, New Delhi. It is further
submitted that the applicant loaded the same from the Ghaziabad
godown on the instruction of co-accused Ram, who had provided
the E-way bills and invoices to transport this consignment to
Agartala (Tripura). The E-way bills produced by the drivers of the
applicant clearly show that the consignment declared as chips
and namkeen. When the applicant found that the truck had been
standing at Sonbhadra for the last 30 hours, he immediately
rushed to Sonbhadra in his own vehicle and reached there on
18.10.2025; however, he was arrested despite showing the E-Way
bills and invoices. It is further submitted that the applicant was not
aware of the actual contents inside the cartons of namkeen and
chips, as the cartons were sealed at the time of loading.
Therefore, the applicant has not committed any offence. He has
been falsely implicated merely because he owned the trucks
carrying cartons of chips and namkeen in which bottles of cough
syrup were found. It is also submitted that the cough syrup is
produced by its manufacturer, namely Laborate Pharmaceuticals
Private Ltd, which has the permitted quantity of codeine.
Therefore, it does not fall within the definition of a manufactured
drug under the notification dated 14.11.1985 of Government of
India. Therefore, provisions of the NDPS Act have been
incorrectly invoked against the applicant. It is further submitted
that, to invoke the provisions of Section 35 of the NDPS Act, the
basic foundational facts must be proved, namely that the applicant
was aware that the trucks contained cough syrup having a
narcotic drug. In support of his contention, the applicant has relied
upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Bhola
Singh Vs. State of Punjab in Criminal Appeal No. 408 of 2006,

55
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
Harbhajan Singh Vs. State of Haryana in Criminal Appeal No.
1480 of 2011 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 10543 of 2010 and
Manoj Tejaraj Jain Vs. State of Gujarat in Criminal Appeal No.
5179-15181/2024. It is further submitted that cough syrup is not a
drug if the same is not transported with the sole purpose of
intoxication. Therefore, the provisions of the NDPS Act will not
apply to the applicant. The charge sheet has been filed; therefore,
police interrogation is unnecessary. Hence, the applicant is
entitled to bail.
5. Ms. Pratibha Jaiswal, learned counsel for the applicant in Bail
Application No. 13162 of 2026, submitted that the applicant is the
driver of the truck bearing registration No.MH-46AR-6826 and he,
after loading the consignment on the instruction of the truck
owner, based on the E-way bill and invoice, proceeded to
transport the same from Ghaziabad to its destination place at
Agartala (Tripura). Still, he was stopped at Sonbhadra by the
police and, on checking, phensedyl cough syrups were found
inside the cartons, though the cartons were packed and sealed.
Therefore, the applicant was not aware of the actual contents of
the cartons or of the illegal transportation of cough syrup
containing a permitted quantity of codeine; accordingly, the
provisions of the NDPS Act cannot be invoked against the
applicant. She further submitted that the applicant was not aware
of the presence of cough syrup inside packed cartons of chips;
therefore, the provisions of Section 35 of the NDPS Act would not
apply to the applicant, as there is no material against the applicant
to establish that the applicant knew the same. Therefore, the
applicant is entitled to bail.
6. Per contra, Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned AAG, submitted that the
alleged e-way bill was found to be forged, based on which the
consignment was transported by the trucks of the applicant. It was
also found that several persons, namely Saurabh Tyagi, Vishal

56
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
Upadhaya, Shivakant, Susheel Yadav, Shubham Jaiswal, Asif,
Washim @ Nanu, Santosh Bhadana, and Abhishek Sharma, were
involved in the illegal trade of cough syrup. It was also found that
Santosh Bhadana outsourced the transporters and then sent the
consignment carrying cough syrup to different places. Still, AAG
could not show any evidence that the applicant himself prepared
the GST E-Way bill or invoice, or he knew that bottles of cough
syrup were concealed inside the cartons of chips and namkeen.
Learned AAG also submitted that the mobile number provided by
the applicant regarding one Ram, who had given the e-way bill
and order to transport the consignment, belongs to Kalam
Chakma, resident of Agratala (Tripura).
7. I have heard the submissions of learned counsel for the rival
parties and perused the record.
8. It is not in dispute that the applicant (Brijmohan Shivhare) in
Bail application No.41015 of 2025 is the owner of trucks No.
RG-11JC-1710 and MH-46-AR 6826. However, the applicant
(Ram Gopal Dhakard) in Bail Application No.13162 of 2026 is the
driver of the truck no. MH46AR 6826. These trucks were
intercepted and checked by the police in Sonbhadra, while they
were transporting corrugated card board cartons of namkeen and
chips on the basis of E-way bill and invoices showing
transportation from New Delhi to Agartala. But on checking these
cartons, 1,90,676 bottles of codeine cough syrup(ESKUF)
concealed between the chips and namkeen were found, and it is
also not in dispute that at the time of inspection, the applicants
had shown the E-way Bill    and invoices of the consignment loaded
in the above two trucks and all the cartons were sealed. Though,
subsequently, it was found that the applicants have loaded the
above cartons in both the trucks from Ghaziabad    and E-way Bills
handed over by the applicants were generated by one person
Kalam Chakma of Agartala. On perusal of recovery video placed

57
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
before the Court by I.O. of this case, it is clear that all the above
cartons were sealed and the transporter cannot be presumed or
guessed that the cartons were containing codeine based cough
syrup bottles concealed between the namkeen and chips.
Therefore, possession of codeine based cough syrup in the above
two trucks inside the cartons of namkeen and chips cannot be
said to be consciousness possession on the part of truck owner or
driver in view of judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Bhola
Singh Vs. State of Punjab in Criminal Appeal No. 408 of 2006,
Harbhajan Singh Vs. State of Haryana in Criminal Appeal No.
1480 of 2011 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 10543 of 2010.
9. Considering the above facts and circumstances and keeping in
view the nature of offence, evidence, complicity of accused and
also taking into account overcrowded jails and heavy pendency of
criminal cases before the trial courts as well as considering the
mandate of the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Kapil
Wadhawan vs Central Bureau of Investigation reported in 2025
SCC Online SC 3038 as well as guideline of this Court in the case
of Maya Tiwari vs State of U.P. reported in 2024 SCC Online All
6765 regarding grant of bail and without expressing any opinion
on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant
are entitled to be enlarged on bail.
10. Let the applicants- Brijmohan Shivhare and Ram Gopal
Dhakad involved in the aforementioned crime be released on bail,
on their furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the
like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
11. The applicant shall be released on bail as per the conditions
mentioned at the tail end of this judgment.
61. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 18028 of 2026 (Vinod
Verma Vs. State of U.P.) and No. 20249 of 2026 (Sanskar Verma
Vs. State of U.P.)

58
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AAG for
the State.
2. Both the bail applications arise from the same case crime
number and have common facts, therefore, the same is decided
by this common order.
3. These bail applications have been filed with a prayer to release
the applicants on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 1054 of
2025, under Sections 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2)
(A) of BNS, 2023 and Section 8/21, 27A/29 NDPS Act, Police
Station Robertsganj, District Sonbhadra.
4. Rejoinder affidavit dated 03.07.2026 filed by the learned
counsel for the applicant in Criminal Misc Bail Application
No.18026 in response to the counter affidavit filed by the State, is
taken on record.
5. Supplementary counter affidavit dated 25.07.2026 filed on
behalf of the State is taken on record.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant in Criminal Misc. Bail
Application No.18028 of 2026 does not propose to file any
rejoinder thereto.
7. Supplementary affidavit dated 12.08.2026 filed by the learned
counsel for the applicant in criminal Misc. Bail Application
No.18028 of 2026 is also taken on record.
8. Heard Sri Manish Tiwary, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by
Sri Atharva Dixit and Ms Shreyanshi Upadhyay and Sri Ajay
Kumar, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Anoop Trivedi,
learned AAG for the State.
9. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that, as per
the prosecution story, two trucks, as mentioned in the FIR, were
stopped and searched by the police at Sonbhadra and, based on
information received from the truck owner and drivers, the police

59
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
raided Nandgram, Ghaziabad, where police received information
that several persons were involved in the illegal trafficking of
codeine-based cough syrup for intoxication and based on the
information, the police raided the premises of one Vanya
Enterprises, a proprietorship concern of Vishal Upadhyay, and, on
checking the documents of Vanya Enterprises, investigating
agency found that Vanya Enterprises, after purchasing Eskuf
codeine-based cough syrup from Laborate Pharmaceuticals India
Ltd., had sold 1,14,850, bottles to the firm of the applicant, which
is known as Om Sai Pharmaceutical, Prayagraj, and some bottles
bearing same batch numbers were also recovered from Malda,
West Bengal. On that ground alone, the applicants have been
falsely implicated.
10. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that it is not
in dispute that the applicants are partners in Om Sai
Pharmaceutical, Prayagaraj ,which is a drug license holder as a
wholesaler under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, and that
had purchased 1,14,850 bottles from Vanya Enterprises, which
were further sold by the applicant to City Med ,Mirzapur, which is
also a proprietorship concern having a drug licence to sell, stock,
and purchase drugs. It is further submitted that in one batch, more
than 90,000 bottles are produced by the manufacturer. Merely
because some bottles of the same batch have been recovered at
Sonbhadra, allegedly to be used as an intoxicant, is not sufficient
to establish that the cough syrup bottles are the same as those
purchased by the applicant from Vanya Enterprises. Therefore,
there is no material against the applicant. It is further submitted
that the applicant has explained the criminal history of one case in
the accompanying affidavit. It is further submitted that the charge
sheet has been filed in the present case; therefore, custodial
interrogation is not required. If bail is granted, the accused will not
misuse their liberty and will cooperate in the trial proceedings.

60
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
11. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General has
vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that though
the applicant generated an e-way GST bill for transporting
1,14,850 bottles of Eskuf cough syrup from Saili Traders to
applicants’ firm but the truck mentioned in the GST e-way bill was
never transported to the firm of the applicant at Prayagraj. It was
diverted elsewhere for a purpose other than medicinal use. It was
further submitted by learned AAG that during the investigation, the
applicants informed that their firm had further sold the purchased
Eskuf cough syrup to City Meds, Mirzapur. There is also an entry
of Rs. 76,54,653/- in the applicant's account from City Meds,
Mirzapur, out of which Rs. 71 lakhs were deposited in cash. It is
further submitted that during the investigation, it was also found
that an e-way GST bill was generated for transporting Eskuf
cough syrup from the applicant's firm to City Meds, Mirzapur.
12. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the
rival parties and perused the record.
13. From the record, it is not in dispute that the firm of the
applicant, M/s Om Sai Pharmaceutical, Prayagraj, purchased
88,750 bottles of Eskuf cough syrup (having the permitted
quantity of codeine sulphate) on 27.09.2025, bearing batch no.
PEKSL136, 15,600 bottles of Eskuf syrup on 14.10.2025, bearing
batch no. PEKSL138, and 10,500 bottles of Eskuf syrup, bearing
batch no. PEKSL140, on 14.10.2025, totalling 1,14,850 bottles,
from Vanya Enterprise, Ghaziabad. During the inspection of two
trucks at Sonbhadra, 15,000 bottles of Eskuf syrup of batch no.
PEKSL136, 29,400 bottles of Eskuf syrup of batch no. PEKSL138,
and 15,275 bottles of Eskuf syrup of batch no. PEKSL140 were
recovered on 18.10.2025 by the police from the cartons loaded in
the trucks.
14. As per the record, the firm of the applicant, Om Sai
Pharmaceutical, is having a drug licence as a stockist and dealer

61
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
of medicines, and they have sold 1,14,850 bottles to City Med
Mirzapur. The record also shows that Rs. 76,54,653/- was
deposited in the account of the proprietorship firm of the
applicants by City Med Mirzapur regarding the supply of codeine
syrup by the applicant’s firm to City Med, Mirzapur.
15. It is not in dispute that a particular batch number may have up
to 90,000 bottles of cough syrup. Though, the recovery of some of
the bottles having batch numbers similar to those of the
purchases made by the applicants firm at Sonbhadra ,cannot be
presumed to mean that the recovered bottles actually belonged to
the applicants, as the applicant had purchased only a very small
part of batch no.PEKSL-136,138 and 140. Merely recovering
15,000 bottles of batch no.PEKSL136,29500 of batch
no.PEKSL138 and 1540 bottles of batch no.PEKSL140, itself is
not sufficient to presume that these bottles were the same as
those purchased by the applicants.
16. The State could not brought on record any other material
showing that the applicants’ had sold or transported the
purchased codeine cough syrup for the purpose of intoxication.
Therefore, this Court is inclined to release the applicant on bail
keeping in view the nature of offence, evidence, complicity of
accused and taking into account overcrowded jails and heavy
pendency of criminal cases before the trial courts as well as
considering the mandate of the judgement of the Apex Court in
the case of Kapil Wadhawan vs Central Bureau of Investigation
reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 3038 as well as guideline of this
Court in the case of Maya Tiwari vs State of U.P. reported in 2024
SCC Online All 6765 regarding grant of bail and without
expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the
opinion that the applicants are entitled to be enlarged on bail.
17. Let the applicants- Vinod Verma and Sanskar Verma involved
in the aforementioned crime be released on bail, on their

62
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like
amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
18. The applicant shall be released on bail on the conditions
mentioned at the tail end of this judgment.
62. CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 18114 of 2026
(Devesh Jaiswal @ Divesh Jaiswal Vs. State of U.P.)
1. Heard Sri Udai Karan Saxena, learned Senior Counsel,
assisted by Ms Divya Yadav, counsel for the applicant and Sri
Anoop Trivedi, learned Additional Advocate General for the State
and perused the records.
2. The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to
release the applicant on bail during trial in Case Crime No. 571 of
2025, under Section 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2) BNS and
Section 8/9va/21/27(A)/29 of NDPS Act, Police Station
Mugalsarai, District Chandauli.
3. As per the prosecution story mentioned in the FIR, three firms,
namely Samridha Enterprises, Chaubey Distributor and S.P.
Firms, were inspected by the Drugs Department, and the
concerned officer found that these firms did not exist and no stock
was found. During the investigation, it was found that the present
applicant, the proprietor of M/s D.S.A. Pharma at Varanasi, was
working as a handler of Shiv Traders and used to deposit money
into the account of Shiva Enterprises. It is further submitted that
the proprietor of Shiva Enterprises, Kishan Lal Yadav, also stated
that the applicant is actually operating these firms, and during the
investigation it was also found that Devesh Jaiswal was
instrumental in creating the fake firms; one blank cheque of Shiva
Enterprises was found in the office of Shaili Traders.
4. Counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant was
implicated in Case Crime No.235 of 2025, Police Station- Kotwali,

63
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
District Varanasi, and thereafter he has been falsely implicated in
the present case. However, the applicant has no concern
whatsoever with the present case. It is further submitted that there
is no material showing that the applicant has deposited any
amount in the account of M/s Shiva Traders, and also no evidence
regarding the quantity of the amount which the applicant has
deposited in the bank account of M/S Shiva Traders; therefore,
the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. The applicant has
explained the criminal history of three cases. It is further
submitted that the charge sheet has been filed in the present
case; therefore, there is no requirement of custodial interrogation.
The applicant is a law-abiding citizen, and he has been
languishing in jail since 18.04.2026. If he is granted bail, he will
not misuse his liberty and will cooperate in the trial proceedings.
5. Learned Additional Advocate General for the State has
submitted that the present applicant was actually working as a
handler to deposit the cash and to open fake pharma firms on
behalf of the Shaili Traders. It is further submitted that it is clear
from the statement of one Kishan Lal, who was shown to be the
proprietor of Shiva Enterprises, that the applicant created M/s
 Shiva Enterprises and also opened an account in the Bank. The
applicant had also taken the cheque book issued to him after
getting it signed and assured to give Rs. 12,000/- per month to the
applicant. It is further submitted that Kishan Lal admitted that he
used to sell flower garlands in Varanasi and was unemployed. The
present applicant deposited crores of rupees in the account of
Shiva Enterprises; therefore, the applicant was working as a
handler for Shaili Traders and is not entitled to bail. He also
submitted that, based on a bogus firm, he also issued several
forged certificates to open fake firms. It was also submitted that
proprietors of several firms have also stated that the present
applicant has created forged transportation bills.

64
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
6. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the
rival parties and perused the record.
7. In the present case, the allegation against the applicant is that
he was handler of Shiva Enterprises and he used to deposit
money in the account Shiva Enterprises. The proprietor of Shiva
Enterprises, Kishan Lal also stated in his statement that though
he was shown to be proprietor of Shiva Enterprises but actually
this firm was opened by the present applicant, but except the
statement of Kishan Lal, there is no other material that the
applicant has opened the firm Shiva Enterprises and also there is
no material showing the exact amount ,deposited by the applicant
in the account of Shiva Enterprises and there is no other material
showing the involvement of the applicant regarding the handling
the cash of the Shiva Enterprises or involvement in illegal
trafficking of codeine cough syrup coupled with the fact that
charge sheet has already been, therefore, there is no requirement
for custodial interrogation and keeping in view the nature of
offence, evidence, complicity of accused and taking into account
overcrowded jails and heavy pendency of criminal cases before
the trial courts as well as considering the mandate of the
judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Kapil Wadhawan vs
Central Bureau of Investigation reported in 2025 SCC Online SC
3038 as well as guideline of this Court in the case of Maya Tiwari
vs State of U.P. reported in 2024 SCC Online All 6765 regarding
grant of bail and without expressing any opinion on the merits of
the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be
enlarged on bail.
8. Let the applicant- Devesh Jaiswal @ Divesh Jaiswal involved
in the aforementioned crime 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.

65
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
9. The applicant shall be released on bail on the conditions
mentioned at the tail end of this judgment.
63. CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14351 of 2026
(Divesh Jaiswal Vs. State of U.P.)
1. Heard Sri Udai Karan Saxena, learned Senior Counsel assisted
by Ms. Divya Yadav, counsel for the applicant and Sri Anoop
Trivedi, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and
perused the records.
2. The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to
release the applicant on bail during trial in Case Crime No. 377 of
2025, under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(1), 208(b), 61(2)
BNS and Section 26(d)/29/8(c)/21(c) of NDPS Act, Police Station
Adalhat, District Mirzapur.
3. Counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant was not
named in the FIR wherein the allegation has been made that one
Akshat, who is the proprietor of M/s. A.K. Distributor, had
purchased the bottles of cough syrup from Shaili Traders, but on
inspection, no document was shown regarding the actual
purchase from Shaili Traders; thereafter, on the basis of the
confessional statement of Akshat Yadav, the name of the
applicant has been implicated in the present case. Akshat Yadav
has stated that Devesh Jaiswal formed the pharma firm M/S A.K.
Distributor in him as proprietor in exchange for money, as well as
a commission of Rs. 2 for each bottle of 100 ml codeine cough
syrup. It is further submitted that except the confessional
statement of co-accused Akshat Yadav, there is no material
against the applicant. The applicant has been falsely implicated in
the present case. The charge sheet has been filed in the present
case; therefore, there is no requirement of custodial interrogation.
The applicant is a law-abiding citizen, and he has been

66
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
languishing in jail since 18.04.2026. If he is granted bail, he will
not misuse his liberty and will cooperate in the trial proceedings.
4. Learned Additional Advocate General for the State has
submitted that as per the statement of Akshat Yadav as well as
statement of Ajit Yadav (applicant in bail Application no.14549 of
2026), it is clear that actually the applicant has formed forged firm
as M/s A.K. Distributor showing Akshat Yadav as proprietor and
M/s Nihal Distributor showing Ajit Yadav as proprietor with a
promise to provide them commission on the sale of bottle of
codeine cough syrup. It is further submitted that the present
applicant was not only instrumental in forming these firms, and
proprietors of these firms could not show any document
regarding any sale or purchase of codeine cough syrup in those
firms. Only money was deposited by the applicant in these firms
without any business. He was working as a handler for Amit
Jaiswal, who was the competent person of Shaili Traders. It is
further submitted that, while forming these firms, the proprietors
submitted forged documents. The co-accused also stated that
Devesh Jaiswal committed the entire offence. Therefore, the
applicant is not entitled to bail.
5. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the
rival parties and perused the record.
6. In the present case the allegation against the applicant is that
he formed a firm, namely, M/s A.K. Distributors, in the name of
Akshat Yadav and M/s A.K. Distributors purchased the codeine-
based cough syrup from Saili Traders, but at the time of
inspection, no document could be produced by M/s A.K.
Distributors regarding the purchase, sale or stock of the above
mentioned codeine-based cough syrup. Therefore, M/s A.K.
Distributors helped Saili Traders in diverting the codeine-based
cough syrup for the purpose of intoxication and there is also the
allegation against the applicant, that he deposited money in the

67
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
account of M/s A.K. Distributors. In the present case, except the
statement of Co-accused Akshat Yadav, there is no material
against the applicant regarding the formation of M/s A.K.
Distributors as well as depositing the money on behalf of Amit
Jaiswal, who is the competent person of Saili Traders and keeping
in view the nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused
and taking into account overcrowded jails and heavy pendency of
criminal cases before the trial courts as well as considering the
mandate of the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Kapil
Wadhawan vs Central Bureau of Investigation reported in 2025
SCC OnLine SC 3038 as well as guideline of this Court in the
case of Maya Tiwari Vs. State of U.P., 2024 SCC Online All 6765
regarding grant of bail and without expressing any opinion on the
merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled
to be enlarged on bail. Accordingly, the present application is
allowed.
7. Let the applicant- Divesh Jaiswal, involved in the
aforementioned crime be released on bail, on his furnishing a
personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount.
8. The applicant shall be released on bail on the conditions
mentioned at the tail end of this judgment.
64. CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14549 of 2026
(Divesh Jaiswal Vs. State of U.P.)
1. Heard Sri Udai Karan Saxena, learned Senior Counsel assisted
by Ms. Divya Yadav, counsel for the applicant and Sri Anoop
Trivedi, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and
perused the records.
2. The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to
release the applicant on bail during trial in Case Crime No. 378 of
2025, under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(1), 208(b), 61(2)

68
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
BNS and Section 26(d)/29/8©/21© of NDPS Act, Police Station
Adalhat, District Mirzapur.
3. Counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant was not
named in the FIR wherein the allegation has been made that one
Ajit Yadav, who is the proprietor of M/s. Nihal Distributor had
purchased the bottle of cough syrup in huge quantity from Shaili
Traders, but on inspection, no document was shown regarding the
actual purchase from Shaili Traders; thereafter, on the basis of the
confessional statement of co-accused Ajit Yadav, the name of the
applicant was implicated in the present case.  Ajit Yadav stated
that applicant formed the firm M/s Nihal Distributor showing himas
proprietor in exchange for money, as well as a commission of Rs.
2 lac for each bottle of 100 ml codeine cough syrup. It is further
submitted that, except the confessional statement of co-accused
Ajit Yadav, there is no material against the applicant. He has been
falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that
the charge sheet has been filed in the present case; therefore,
custodial interrogation is not required. The applicant is a law-
abiding citizen, and he has been languishing in jail since
18.04.2026. If he is granted bail, he will not misuse his liberty and
will cooperate in the trial proceedings.
4. Learned Advocate General for the State has submitted that as
per the statement of co-accused Ajit Yadav(Proprietor of NIihal
Traders) as well as statement of Akshat Yadav(applicant in bail
Application no.14351 of 2026), it is clear that actually the
applicant has formed forged firms M/s Nihal Distributor in the
name of Ajit Yadav and M/s A.K. Traders in the name of Akshat
Yadav, as a consideration of providing them commission on the
sale of bottle of codeine cough syrup. It is further submitted that
the present applicant was instrumental in forming these firms and
there is no document showing any sale or purchase of codeine
cough syrup in those firms. Only money was deposited. He was

69
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
working as a handler for Amit Jaiswal, who was the competent
person of Shaili Traders. It is further submitted that, while forming
these firms, the proprietors also submitted forged documents. The
co-accused also stated that Devesh Jaiswal committed the entire
offence. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to bail.
5. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.
6. In the present case the allegation against the applicant is that
he formed a firm, namely, Nihal Distributors, in the name of Ajit
Yadav and Nihal Distributors purchased the codeine-based cough
syrup from Saili Traders, but at the time of inspection, no
document could be produced by Nihal Distributors regarding the
purchase, sale or stock of the codeine-based cough syrup alleged
to have been purchased from Saili Traders and applicant
deposited money in the account of Nihal Distributors. In the
present case, except the statement of co-accused Ajit Yadav,
there is no material against the applicant regarding the formation
of Nihal Distributors as well as depositing the money on behalf of
Amit Jaiswal, who is the competent person of Saili Traders and
keeping in view the nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the
accused and taking into account overcrowded jails and heavy
pendency of criminal cases before the trial courts as well as
considering the mandate of the judgement of the Apex Court in
the case of Kapil Wadhawan vs Central Bureau of Investigation
reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 3038 as well as guideline of this
Court in the case of Maya Tiwari Vs. State of U.P., 2024 SCC
Online All 6765 regarding grant of bail and without expressing any
opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the
applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. Accordingly, the
present application is allowed.  
7. Let the applicant- Divesh Jaiswal, involved in the
aforementioned crime be released on bail, on his furnishing a

70
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, to the
satisfaction of the court concerned.
8.The applicant shall be released on bail on the conditions
mentioned at the tail end of this judgment.
65. CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 39018 of 2025
(Sunil Kumar Vairagi Vs. State of U.P.)
1. Heard Ms. Kusum Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant
and Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned Additional Advocate General for
the State and perused the records.
2. The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to
release the applicant on bail during trial in Case Crime No. 416 of
2025, under Section 8/21 of the NDPS Act and Section 319(2),
318(4) of B.N.S., Police Station Chunar, District Mirzapur.
3. Counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant was
working as a Khalasi in DCM No. MH 14 HG 0083 and, while
transporting bags of paddy straw, was intercepted by the police
and, on checking, the bags bottles of Onerex 100 ml cough syrup
manufactured by Wingsbiotech LLP were found concealed inside
the paddy straw. A total of 8300 bottles(each 100ml) of cough
syrup were recovered from the DCM vehicle in question. Counsel
for the applicant submitted that the FIR makes it clear that the
Driver, as well as the owner of the DCM, were apprehended on
the spot during the police raid, and the applicant is a Khalasi. He
is not involved in transportation. His work is only to assist the
driver and close the DCM's tailgate after loading and unloading;
therefore, the applicant has not committed any offence. The
applicant is a law-abiding citizen, and he has been languishing in
jail since 27.08.2025. If granted bail, he will not misuse his liberty
and will cooperate in the trial proceedings.

71
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
4. Learned Advocate General for the State has submitted that the
racks of codeine syrup bottles of 100 ml each were recovered
from the paddy straw bags loaded in the DCM vehicle, wherein
the applicant was a khalasi. Therefore, the applicant is
responsible for the same, and the aforesaid codeine syrup bottles
were being transported for sale other than medical use; therefore,
the applicant is not entitled to bail. He further submitted that for
the transportation, there was no e-way bill or any other document
with the applicant at the time of checking at Chunar. Therefore,
the applicant is not entitled to bail.
5. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.
6. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case,
submissions of learned counsel for the parties, it is not in dispute
that the applicant is a helper/khalasi in DCM MH 14 HG 0083,
which was transporting bags of paddy straw containing codeine-
based cough syrup Onerex. There is no material against the
applicant that the applicant, despite being a khalasi, was aware
about the actual contents inside the bags of paddy straw, as the
same were sealed and loaded by the parties concerned and
keeping in view the nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the
accused and taking into account overcrowded jails and heavy
pendency of criminal cases before the trial courts as well as
considering the mandate of the judgement of the Apex Court in
the case of Kapil Wadhawan vs Central Bureau of Investigation
reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 3038 as well as guideline of this
Court in the case of Maya Tiwari Vs. State of U.P., 2024 SCC
Online All 6765 regarding grant of bail and without expressing any
opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the
applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. Accordingly, the
present application is allowed.

72
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
7. Let the applicant- Sunil Kumar Vairagi, involved in the
aforementioned crime 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.
8. The applicant shall be released on bail on the conditions
mentioned at the tail end of this judgment.
66. CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1298 of 2026
(Ankit Patel Vs. State of U.P.)
1. Heard Ms. Kusum Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant
and Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned Additional Advocate General for
the State and perused the records.
2. The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to
release the applicant on bail during trial in Case Crime No. 172 of
2025, under Section 8/21 NDPS Act and Section 319(2), 318(4) of
B.N.S., Police Station- Dramandganj, District- Mirzapur.
3. Counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant along
with the co-accused was travelling in Car No. HR 19F 8338 which
was driven by the applicant.; thereafter, the police intercepted and
checked the car. On checking, the police recovered 84 bottles
(each 100 ml) of WINCEREX cough syrup manufactured by
Wings Pharma. Though the recovered cough syrup had the
permitted quantity of codeine phosphate and does not fall within
the definition of a narcotic drug, the applicant has been falsely
implicated. It is further submitted that the applicant was actually
transporting the aforesaid bottles of cough syrup (100 ml) and
was not involved in any illegal activity. There is no public witness
of aforesaid recovery as well as no compliance of section 50 of
NDPS Act as the drug inspector is not the gazetted officer. The
applicant has no criminal history. It is further submitted that the
charge sheet has been filed in the present case; therefore,
custodial interrogation is not required. The applicant is a law-

73
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
abiding citizen, and he has been languishing in jail since
15.11.2025. If he is granted bail, he will not misuse his liberty and
will cooperate in the trial proceedings.
4. Learned Advocate General for the State has vehemently
opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the applicant was
transporting 84 bottles of codeine cough syrup without having any
valid document; therefore, the same was being transported for a
purpose other than medical use; therefore, the applicant is not
entitled to be released on bail.
5. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.
6. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case,
submissions of learned counsel for the parties, it is not in dispute
that only 84 bottles of Wincerex cough syrup were recovered from
a car, HR 19 F 8338, wherein the applicant, along with the co-
accused, was going. Therefore, considering the small number of
bottles of codeine-based cough syrup, which itself is not a
manufactured drug, and there is no material that the applicant
was transporting the same for intoxication and keeping in view the
nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and taking
into account overcrowded jails and heavy pendency of criminal
cases before the trial courts as well as considering the mandate of
the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Kapil Wadhawan
vs Central Bureau of Investigation reported in 2025 SCC OnLine
SC 3038 as well as guideline of this Court in the case of Maya
Tiwari Vs. State of U.P., 2024 SCC Online All 6765 regarding
grant of bail and without expressing any opinion on the merits of
the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be
enlarged on bail. Accordingly, the present application is allowed.  
7. Let the applicant- Ankit Patel, involved in the aforementioned
crime be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and

74
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the
court concerned.
8. The applicant shall be released on bail on the conditions
mentioned at the tail end of this judgment.
67. Crl Misc. Bail Application No.17096 of 2026 (Aakash Pathak
Vs. State of U.P.)
1. Counter affidavit filed by learned AAG today is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Anurag Dubey, Advocate assisted by Sri Pavan
Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Anoop Trivedi,
learned AAG for the State.
3. Present bail application has been filed to release the applicant
on bail during trial in Case Crime no 623 of 2025 under Sections
8, 21, 26(d), 29 N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station- Sarnath, District
Varanasi.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant
was not named in the FIR, wherein an allegation was made
against one Vishnu Pandey, who was the proprietor of M/s P.D.
Pharma, which was involved in the sale and purchase of codeine
based cough syrup without valid documentation with several other
pharma firms. It is further submitted that such firms were created
at the behest of co-accused Shubham Jaiswal, who is a
competent person in Saili Traders, as well as some other
associates of Shubham Jaiswal.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that even in
the statement of Vishnu Pandey, there was no discussion about
the involvement of the applicant, wherein allegations regarding
the involvement of one Lokesh Agarwal, Prateek Gujarati and
Subham Jaiswal have been made. The applicant's name surfaced
in the statement of Faizul Rahman, who was found to have
created fictitious firms, M.K. Health Care and J.K. Pharma through

75
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
its proprietor Md. Shaif. In his confessional statement, Faizul
Rahman said he heard that the applicant, Shubham Jaiswal, and
Prateek were involved in trading codeine syrup. Subsequently, the
applicant's name surfaced in the statement of co-accused Bhola
Prasad, proprietor of Saili Traders, who stated that the applicant
was also involved in the business of Saili Traders and created
fake firms. Thereafter, the name of the applicant again came up in
the statement of Satendra Kumar Sahu, proprietor of Raja
Medical, Prayagraj, wherein he stated that the applicant and other
accused persons met him and instructed him, on behalf of Saili
Traders, regarding the sale, purchase, and dealing of codeine
syrup. It is also submitted that except the confessional statement
of the co-accused, there is no evidence against the applicant. He
has been falsely implicated merely because, in 2022, the
applicant registered a proprietorship firm as Med Remedy Life
Private Ltd., for which an experience certificate was issued by
Subham Jaiswal, who was a competent person in Saili Traders.
However, after the knowledge of Shubham Jaiswal's illegal
activities, the applicant cancelled the firm's registration on
29.04.2023, and the drug licence was also surrendered on
05.12.2023. Therefore, no material shows that the applicant firm,
Medi Remedy Life Pvt Ltd, was ever dealt with in any business
regarding codeine cough syrup. The applicant has explained the
criminal history of one case in the accompanying affidavit. The
charge sheet has been filed; therefore, custodial interrogation is
not required.
6. However, learned AAG vehemently opposed the submissions
and submitted that the applicant had a close association with the
kingpin of illegal traders of codeine cough syrup, Shubham
Jaiswal, who is involved in illegal trafficking of the codeine cough
syrup on behalf of Saili Traders. It was further submitted that the
rent agreement executed at the time of taking the shop for the
applicant's firm, M/s Med Remedy Life, was executed by

76
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
Shubham Jaiswal, as the shop was opened on the basis of an
experience certificate issued by Shubham Jaiswal. It is further
submitted that CDR of the mobile phone of the applicant, shows
that the applicant was in contact with Shubham Jaiswal; therefore,
he was also involved in conspiracy in illegal trade of codeine
syrup along with Subham Jaiswal. Therefore, the applicant is one
of the parties involved in conspiracy for illegal trade of cough
syrup, which is punishable under section 29 of the NDPS Act.
7. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.
8. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case,
submissions of learned counsel for the parties, it is not in dispute
that the applicant initially opened a proprietorship firm,
Medremedy Life Care Private Limited, in the year 2022 on the
basis of an experience certificate issued by Shubham Jaiswal
(competent person of Saili Traders). The applicant cancelled the
registration of the firm on 29.04.2023 and the drug licence was
also surrendered by the applicant on 05.12.2023, and thereafter
the firm of the applicant, Medremedy Life Care Private Limited,
did not deal in any business regarding medicines, including
codeine cough syrup. There is no allegation made against the
applicant in the FIR and the name of the applicant surfaced in the
statements of co-accused persons regarding his involvement in
illegal trafficking of codeine cough syrup, without being any other
material on record and there is no recovery of any incriminating
material from the applicant and keeping in view the nature of
offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and taking into
account the fact that the charge-sheet has already been filed and
considering the overcrowded jails and heavy pendency of criminal
cases before the trial courts as well as considering the mandate of
the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Kapil Wadhawan
vs Central Bureau of Investigation reported in 2025 SCC OnLine

77
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
SC 3038 as well as guideline of this Court in the case of Maya
Tiwari Vs. State of U.P., 2024 SCC Online All 6765 regarding
grant of bail and without expressing any opinion on the merits of
the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be
enlarged on bail. Accordingly, the present application is allowed.
9. Let the applicant- Aakash Pathak, involved in the
aforementioned crime 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.
10. The applicant shall be released on bail on the conditions
mentioned at the tail end of this judgment.
68. Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 17810 of 2026 (Vinod Agrawal
Vs. State of U.P.)
1. Counter affidavit filed by learned AAG today has been taken on
record.
2. Heard Sri Gopal Swaroop Chaturvedi, Senior Advocate,
assisted by Sri Aditya Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant
and Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned AAG for the State.
3. Present bail application has been filed to release the applicant
on bail during trial in Case Crime No.623 of 2025, under Sections
8/21/26(d)/29 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 & Sections 61(2), 319(2) 318(4), 338,
336(3), 340(4) & 208 of the BNS-2023, Police Station- Sarnath,
District-Varanasi.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant
being proprietor of M/s Agrawal’s Brother, has a license as a
stockist to deal with medicine under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.
It is further submitted that the allegations against the applicant are
that he purchased 89600 bottles of Eskuf Codeine Syrup from the
manufacturer, Laborate Pharmaceuticals India Ltd. and

78
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
transferred the same to M.K. Health Care, which was found to be
a non-existent. It is further submitted that the applicant has sold
89600 bottles of Eskuf Cough Syrup to M.K. Health Care. It is
undisputed that M.K. Health Care have a license under the Drugs
and Cosmetics Act to purchase Eskuf Cough Syrup, and the
aforesaid transfer of 89600 bottles of 100 ml each of Eskuf syrup
to M.K. Health Care, which is duly substantiated with an e-way bill
issued by the GST Department; therefore, the applicant has not
committed any offence.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that merely
because six crore has been deposited/ transferred in the account
of the applicant by M.K. Health Care, though bill of 89600 bottles
shows the amount as two crore, does not make the sale of the
cough syrup fictitious, as the remaining amount relates to other
medicines supplied by the applicant to M.K. Health Care. The
State did not deny this fact in the counter affidavit and also
enclosed the invoice for the same. The The police have filed the
charge sheet; therefore, there is no requirement for custodial
interrogation. The applicant has explained the criminal history of
three cases in the accompanying affidavit; therefore, the applicant
is entitled to bail.
6. Per contra, learned AAG submitted that though in the ledger of
the applicant, the bill of selling 89600 bottles of Eskuf cough syrup
has been shown as two crore to M.K. Health Care, but M.K.
Health Care transferred six crore to the applicant's account,
indicating that the Eskuf syrup was sold at a higher price with the
motive of selling it in the open market for intoxication. It is further
submitted that the M.K.Health Care firm was found to be fictitious
and non-existent. However, the proprietor of the firm is Md. Shaif,
it was actually opened by Faizul Rahman at the instance of
Shubham Jaishwal and Prateek Gujrati. It is further submitted that
the handler of the applicant, Faizul Rahman, further used several

79
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
fictitious firms to prepare the forged bill regarding sale and
purchase of cough syrup. He further submitted that the truck
number shown in the e-way bill regarding the alleged sale of
89600 bottles of cough syrup by the applicant , was found to be
incorrect, as the owner as well as the driver of the truck bearing
no. UP 78 LN 5793, Sushil Kumar has stated in his statement that
he never transported any consignment in the year 2025 to M.K.
Health Care. It is also submitted that the cough syrup alleged to
be sold by the applicant to M.K. Health Care, of one batch number
and several codeine syrup bottles found at different places, were
of the same batch number. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled
to bail.
7. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.
8. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case,
submissions of learned counsel for the parties, it is not in dispute
that the applicant is a proprietor of Agarwal Brothers, which is a
licensed drug stockist, and during the course of business, the firm
of the applicant purchased 89,600 bottles of Eskuf cough syrup
and sold it to M/s M.K. Health Care, and the e-way bill shows the
actual delivery of the cough syrup from Laborate Pharmaceuticals
to the applicant's firm. The name of the applicant surfaced as an
accused in the present case only on the basis of the statement of
the owner of the truck which was mentioned in the e-way bill,
wherein he stated that he never delivered any cough syrup to the
applicant, and Rs. 6 crores was transferred by M/s M.K. Health
Care only in the account of the applicant's firm, though the price
of 89,600 bottles of cough syrup is two crores, and the applicant
has specifically pleaded that he is a stockist of medicines and the
remaining amount is regarding the other medicines supplied by
the applicant's firm to M/s M.K. Health Care and keeping in view
the nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and

80
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
taking into account overcrowded jails and heavy pendency of
criminal cases before the trial courts as well as considering the
mandate of the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Kapil
Wadhawan vs Central Bureau of Investigation reported in 2025
SCC OnLine SC 3038 as well as guideline of this Court in the
case of Maya Tiwari Vs. State of U.P., 2024 SCC Online All 6765
regarding grant of bail and without expressing any opinion on the
merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled
to be enlarged on bail. Accordingly, the present application is
allowed.  
9. Let the applicant- Vinod Agrawal, involved in the
aforementioned crime 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
10. The applicant shall be released on bail on the conditions
mentioned at the tail end of this judgment.
69. CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24920 of 2026
(Swapanil Kesari Vs. State of U.P.)
1. Counter affidavit filed today by the State is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Amit Krishna, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by
Sri Ashish Chitranshi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anoop
Trivedi, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and
perused the record.3. The instant bail application has been filed
with a prayer to release the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.
343 of 2025 under Sections-8, 21, 25, 29 of N.D.P.S, Act, Police
Station- Rohaniya, District-Varanasi, during the pendency of the
trial.
4. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that applicant
is the property broker and allegation against him that he arranged
shop on rent for Nagendra Kumar Singh, proprietor of Singh

81
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
Medicos, Chandauli. A rent agreement for the shop was also
executed between the landlord Smt. Rekha Devi and Nagendra
Kumar Singh (proprietor of Singh Medicos). The name of the
applicant came up in the statement of Smt. Sneh Lata, the cashier
of Bank of Maharashtra, where the account of M/s Singh Medicos
was maintained and she stated that the applicant being employee
of Singh Medicos deposited money in the account of Singh
Medicos on several occasions. Learned senior Advocate further
submitted that It evident from the statement of bank manager that
at the time of depositing the amount in the account of Singh
Medicos, its proprietor Nagendra Kumar Singh also remained
present along with the applicant. Therefore, applicant has not
committed any offence and there is no recovery of any document
regarding storing or transporting the cough syrup. In support of his
contention, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the
judgement of Ashok Kumar Vs. Union of India reported in 2014
SCC OnLine All 16411 wherein the Allahabad High Court
observed that merely being an employee of a firm which is
involved in dealing with the codeine based cough syrup does not
make him liable unless he is consciously involved therein. 
5. Learned A.A.G. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail
and submitted that after recovery of Phensedyl and Eskuf cough
syrup from the godown situated at Police Station Rohaniya, it was
found that the above-recovered bottles were transferred from M/s
R.S. Pharma to Singh Medicos. During the investigation, it was
found that Singh Medicos purchased the cough syrup and had
large transactions in its account, which the present applicant
deposited. The present applicant's statement, recorded before he
made an accused, also shows that he created the firm Singh
Medicos in the name of its proprietor, Nagendra Kumar Singh,
and thereafter an account was opened, which the applicant also
operated.

82
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
6. It is further submitted that from the statements of bank
employees as well as the statements of other witnesses, including
the proprietor of Al Ukba Medical Agency, it is clear that the
applicant deposited a huge amount of money on several
occasions not in the bank account of Singh Medicos but also in
the bank account of Al Ukba Medical Agency. This fact has been
duly substantiated by the vouchers of the bank as well as the
statements of bank officials.
7. It is further submitted that the CDR of the mobile phone of the
applicant shows that he was in conversation with the co-accused
Dinesh and Ashish Pathak, and co-accused Dinesh was a close
associate of Shubham Jaiswal, who was the kingpin involved in
transporting and dealing in the business of cough syrup. It is also
submitted by learned AAG that the applicant was involved in a
conspiracy with Shubham Jaiswal and his man, Dinesh, and used
to deposit huge amounts in the accounts of Singh Medicos and Al
Ukba Medical Agency. However, these firms were working only on
paper. It is also submitted by learned AAG that the applicant
arranged even the shop for Singh Medicos. Therefore, the
applicant is not entitled to bail.
8. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.
9. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case,
submissions of learned counsel for the parties and taking into
account the fact that the allegation against the applicant is that he
helped one Nagendra Kumar Singh to open Singh Medicos at
Chandauli and also arranged a shop on rent and thereafter it was
found that huge amounts were deposited by the applicant in Singh
Medicos as well as Al Ukba Medical Agency. From the perusal of
the statement of the bank manager as well as cashier, where the
account of the aforesaid firms was maintained, it is clear that the
applicant had deposited the amount in the capacity of an

83
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
employee of Singh Medicos and on most of the occasions in the
presence of Nagendra Kumar Singh, the proprietor of Singh
Medicos, and merely because the applicant was in contact with
some of the co-accused through phone is not sufficient material
against the applicant. There is no other sufficient material showing
the applicant is involved in illegal trafficking of codeine-based
cough syrup or in the conspiracy thereof and keeping in view the
nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and taking
into account overcrowded jails and heavy pendency of criminal
cases before the trial courts as well as considering the mandate of
the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Kapil Wadhawan
vs Central Bureau of Investigation reported in 2025 SCC OnLine
SC 3038 as well as guideline of this Court in the case of Maya
Tiwari Vs. State of U.P., 2024 SCC Online All 6765 regarding
grant of bail and without expressing any opinion on the merits of
the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be
enlarged on bail. Accordingly, the present application is allowed.  
10. Let the applicant- Swapanil Kesari, involved in the
aforementioned crime 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.
11. The applicant shall be released on bail on the conditions
mentioned at the tail end of this judgment.
70. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 19989 of 2026 (Ashish
Yadav Vs. State of U.P.)
1. Counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State is taken on record.
2. The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to
release the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 343 of 2025,
under Sections- 8, 21, 25, 29 of N.D.P.S, Act, Police Station-
Rohaniya, District-Varanasi, during the pendency of the trial.

84
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
3. Sri Santosh Rai, learned counsel for the applicant, submitted
that the applicant is neither named in the FIR, nor is he the
proprietor or director of any company, and his name surfaced as
an accused only on the basis confessional statement of co-
accused Swapnil which has no evidentiary value. The only
allegation against the applicant is that he deposited the money on
behalf of co-accused Dinesh. It is further submitted that the
applicant, being an employee of Dinesh Kumar, used to deposit
the money on his behalf in Singh Medicos and Al Ukba Medical
Agency. Therefore, except for depositing the money on behalf of
Dinesh Kumar, there is no material against the applicant regarding
his involvement in transporting the cough syrup or any conspiracy
therein. The charge-sheet has been filed. Therefore, the applicant
is entitled to bail.
4. Per contra, learned AAG has vehemently opposed the prayer
for bail and submitted that from the statement of the witness, it is
clear that the applicant deposited the money in the bank account
of M/s Singh Medicos and M/s Al Ulba medical agency on four
occasions on behalf of co-accused Dinesh Kumar. It is further
submitted that the applicant is a competent person of Dinesh
Pharmaceuticals, which was the proprietor concern of Dinesh.
Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to bail.
5. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.
6. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case,
submissions of learned counsel for the parties and taking into
account the fact that the applicant was not named in the FIR; his
name surfaced as an accused in the confessional statement of
co-accused Swapnil, with the allegation that the applicant also
deposited money in Singh Medicos as well as Al Ukba Medical
Agency on behalf of their proprietor. There is no material showing
the involvement of the applicant regarding conspiracy in

85
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
transportation or handling the money regarding illegal trafficking of
codeine-based cough syrup and keeping in view the nature of
offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and taking into
account overcrowded jails and heavy pendency of criminal cases
before the trial courts as well as considering the mandate of the
judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Kapil Wadhawan vs
Central Bureau of Investigation reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC
3038 as well as guideline of this Court in the case of Maya Tiwari
Vs. State of U.P., 2024 SCC Online All 6765 regarding grant of
bail and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case,
I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on
bail. Accordingly, the present application is allowed.  
6. Let the applicant- Ashish Yadav, involved in the aforementioned
crime 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.
7. The applicant shall be released on bail on the conditions
mentioned at the tail end of this judgment.
71. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 20106 of 2026 (Dinesh
Kumar Yadav Vs. State of U.P.)
1. Heard Sri Santosh Rai, learned counsel for the applicant and
learned AAG for the State.
2. The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to
release the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 343 of 2025,
under Sections- 8, 21, 25, 29 of N.D.P.S, Act, Police Station-
Rohaniya, District-Varanasi, during the pendency of the trial.
3. Sri Santosh Rai, learned counsel for the applicant, submitted
that the applicant was not named in the FIR, which was registered
after recovery of 18,600 bottles of Phensedyl and 75,150 bottles
of Eskuf cough syrup from the godown situated at P.S. Rohaniya,

86
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
and the name of the applicant surfaced as an accused in the
statement of co-accused Swapnil as well as in the statement of
the proprietor of Al Ukba Medical Agency. The only allegation
against the applicant is that he used to work on behalf of the main
accused, Shubham Jaiswal, who persuaded the applicant to open
a firm and get involved in the aforesaid business of Eskuf cough
syrup, but there is no material showing the involvement of the
applicant except the confessional statements of co-accused
persons. Charge-sheet has been filed.
4. Learned AAG has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and
submitted that from the statement of Swapnil, recorded before
making him an accused, as well as from the statement of
Saddam, who was the proprietor of Al Ukba Medical Agency,
recorded under Section 183 BNSS, it is clear that the applicant
persuaded several persons to involved in the business codeine
based cough syrup and also helped them in making the firms and
preparing forged vouchers of sale and purchase of codeine syrup.
Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to bail.
5. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.
6. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case,
submissions of learned counsel for the parties and taking into
account the fact that the applicant was not named in the FIR; his
name surfaced as an accused in the confessional statement of
co-accused, with the allegation that the applicant persuaded
several persons to open fake firms and the applicant was working
on behalf of Shubham Jaiswal (competent person of Saili
Traders). There is no material showing that the applicant is
involved in any manner in transportation or sale of codeine-based
cough syrup himself or on behalf of other co-accused and keeping
in view the nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused
and taking into account the fact that the charge-sheet has already

87
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
been filed and considering the overcrowded jails and heavy
pendency of criminal cases before the trial courts as well as
considering the mandate of the judgement of the Apex Court in
the case of Kapil Wadhawan vs Central Bureau of Investigation
reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 3038 as well as guideline of this
Court in the case of Maya Tiwari Vs. State of U.P., 2024 SCC
Online All 6765 regarding grant of bail and without expressing any
opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the
applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. Accordingly, the
present application is allowed.
7. Let the applicant- Dinesh Kumar Yadav, involved in the
aforementioned crime 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.
8. The applicant shall be released on bail on the conditions
mentioned at the tail end of this judgment.
72. Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.17904 of 2026 (Divesh Jaiswal
Vs. State of U.P.)
1. Heard Sri Udai Karan Saxena, learned Senior Advocate
assisted by Ms. Divya Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant,
Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned A.A.G. for the State and perused the
record.
2. The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to
release the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 235 of 2025,
under Sections 8/21/26(D)/29 of N.D.P.S. Act, and Section 61(2),
318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) of B.N.S., P.S. Kotwali, Varanasi,
during the pendency of the trial.
3. As per the prosecution story, the Drug Department conducted a
raid on several firms dealing in medicines. During the raid, it was
found that five firms, including the applicant's firm, were non-

88
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
existent, and the applicant's shop was found closed. Despite
issuance of notice, the firm did not provide any documents
relating to the purchase and further sale of the medicines to the
Drug Department. As per the record, the applicant's firm
purchased 5,97,076 bottles of New Phensedyl cough syrup of 100
ml each, from Saili Traders (proprietor Bhola Prasad) through its
competent person, Shubham Jaiswal. Several bottles of cough
syrup of batch number allegedly purchased by the applicant from
Saili Traders, were recovered during illegal transportation in
Tripura and West Bengal
4. It is further submitted that the applicant is proprietor of a
registered firm M/s DSA pharma and also having licence under
the Drugs and Cosmetics Act to deal with the business of
medicines and, during the course of business, it had purchased
5,97,076 bottles(100ml each) of New Phensedyl cough syrup,
from Saili Traders. The E-way bill, including the transporter
details, is on record. Therefore, the applicant has not committed
any offence. It is further submitted that the applicant has no
criminal history. It is further submitted that the charge sheet has
been filed in the present case; therefore, there is no requirement
of custodial interrogation. The applicant is a law-abiding citizen
and has been languishing in jail since 08.02.2026. If he is granted
bail, he will not misuse his liberty and will cooperate in the trial
proceedings.
5. Learned A.A.G. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail
and submitted that though the applicant had purchased 5,97,076
bottles of New Phensedyl cough syrup from Saili Traders, on
inspection, the firm of the applicant was found to be non-existent
and no document was provided regarding the receipt or sale of
the same to any other firm. It was further submitted that the
applicant issued an experience certificate to the proprietor of M/S
Mahakal Medicos, and the address of M/S Mahakal Medicos is

89
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
the same as the address of the applicant's firm. Therefore, the
applicant created a forged firm dealing in medicines to divert the
codeine- based cough syrup so that it could be transported for
intoxication. It is also submitted that the traceability report of the
concerned toll plaza shows that the bottles purchased by the
applicant from Saili Traders were not actually transported to the
applicant's firm in Varanasi, except for a very small part of the
purchased bottles.
6. It is further submitted that though, during investigation, it was
found that e- way bills were created for sending the bottles of New
Phensedyl cough syrup purchased by the applicant’s firm to nine
different firms, namely, Welcome Pharma, Varanasi, Sri Balaji
Medical, Varanasi, Shiv Enterprises, Chandauli, Sana Medical,
Varanasi, Mahadev Traders, Chandauli, Divya Traders, Varanasi,
Bhairav Medical Agency, Chandauli, Akash Distributor, Varanasi,
and Bajrang Medical Agency, Ghazipur(hereinafter will be referred
as C- layer firms). However, during the investigation, it was further
revealed that the vehicle numbers mentioned in the e-way bills
belonged to three-wheelers, school buses, or ambulances.
Therefore, there was no actual transportation of the New
Phensedyl cough syrup bottles from M/s DSA Pharma to C-Layer
firm. It was further found that there was no document regarding
the purchase, receipt or further sale of the New Phensedyl cough
syrup allegedly sold by the applicant’s firm. Therefore, the entire
lot, which has been shown to have been purchased from Saili
Traders, was illegally transported by diverting it through the
applicant’s firm for the purpose of selling it in the open market as
an intoxicant.
7. It was further submitted that several bottles bearing the same
batch number, allegedly shown to have been purchased by the
applicant’s firm from Saili Traders, were recovered from different
places in Tripura as well as West Bengal during illegal

90
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
transportation. It is also submitted that the records of the firms
which had allegedly shown to have purchased the New Phensedyl
cough syrup from the applicant’s firm show that huge amounts of
cash were deposited in the accounts of those firms without
showing any business transactions, and the said amounts were
further transferred to the account of the applicant’s firm. The
applicant’s firm thereafter transferred the same to the account of
Saili Traders, though, in fact, there was no business in the firms
which were allegedly shown to have purchased the bottles from
the applicant’s firm.
8. It is also submitted that the statement of the proprietor of Akash
Traders, namely, Akash Kumar, was recorded under Section 183
BNSS, wherein he stated that the applicant approached him and
persuaded him to get involved in the business of selling cough
syrup, as it could generate huge profits. Thereafter, the applicant
introduced him to Shubham Jaiswal and Bhola Jaiswal.
Subsequently, on Shubham Jaiswal's instructions, a firm in the
name of Akash was opened, and an account was also opened.
The applicant took the signed cheque book on the pretext of
operating the account for business transactions, and
subsequently, Rs.10,000/- was also given to him. Thereafter, the
applicant did not contact him, and subsequently, it was found that
the business of cough syrup was being carried out by the
applicant in his name (Akash Kumar) without his knowledge.
9. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record. From the perusal of the record, it
is clear that the applicant is a proprietor of DSA Pharma and he
had purchased 59,707 bottles of New Phensedyl cough syrup
containing codeine from Saili Traders (proprietor Bhola Prasad),
but on inspection, no document regarding the purchase or stock
or sale of the New Phensedyl cough syrup allegedly purchased
from Saili Traders was found, though the e-way bills show

91
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
transportation of the aforesaid bottles of cough syrup from Saili
Traders to the firm of the applicant. Subsequently, the e-way bill
shows that the applicant had transferred New Phensedyl cough
syrup purchased to 9 different firms, but in the investigation, it was
found that the vehicle numbers mentioned in the e-way bills
regarding transportation of cough syrup from the applicant's firm
to the other 9 different firms belong to three-wheeler, school
buses and ambulances and no record of actual transportation of
Phensedyl cough syrup, which was initially purchased by the
applicant's firm from Saili Traders, was found. Subsequently, large
stock of bottles of the same batch number (allegedly purchased
by applicant from Saili Traders) was recovered in Tripura as well
as West Bengal during illegal trafficking for the purpose of
intoxication. Even the statement of one witness Akash, who was
the proprietor of Akash Traders, recorded under Section 183
BNSS, also shows that the applicant was actively involved in
opening the fake firms for preparing forged invoices regarding
purchase of codeine based cough syrup. From the perusal of the
record, this Court prima facie found that the applicant is actively
involved in the conspiracy of transportation of codeine-based
cough syrup for the purpose other than medical use, therefore,
this Court is not inclined to release the applicant on bail.
Accordingly, the bail application filed on behalf of the applicant is
hereby rejected. Application, if any, stands disposed of. 
73. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 18610 of 2026 (Ankush
Singh Vs. State of U.P.)
1. Supplementary counter affidavit filed by the State is taken on
record.
2. Heard Sri Udai Karan Saxena, learned Senior Advocate,
assisted by Ms. Divya Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant,

92
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned A.A.G. for the State and perused the
record.
3. The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to
release the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 235 of 2025,
under Sections 8/21/26(D)/29 N.D.P.S. Act and Section 61(2),
318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) of B.N.S., P.S. Kotwali, District,
Varanasi, during the pendency of the trial.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the allegation
against the applicant is that he being proprietor of M/s Mahakal
medical store had purchased 5,21,000 bottles(100ml each) of
Phensedyl cough syrup from Saili Traders and thereafter the
same were transferred to eight firms, namely, Welcome Pharma,
Shri Balaji Medical, Shiv Enterprises, Sana Medical, Mahadev
Traders, Divya Traders, Bhairav Medical Agency and Akash
Traders, but as per the traceability report of the concerned toll
plaza, consignments as mentioned in e-way bills were never
transported to these firms. Therefore the same were diverted to
sell in open market for intoxication.
5. The learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the
e-way bills show that the applicant, being a drug licence holder,
purchased 5,21,000 bottles of Phensedyl from Saili Traders and
transferred the same to eight other firms. If the firms which had
purchased the Phensedyl cough syrup from the applicant’s firm
have misused it, then applicant cannot be held liable, as the entire
transaction was made in the course of the business of medicines.
There is no document to substantiate the aforesaid allegation. It is
further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history. It is
further submitted that the charge sheet has been filed in the
present case; therefore, custodial interrogation is not required.
The applicant is a law-abiding citizen and has been languishing in
jail since 08.02.2026. If he is granted bail, he will not misuse his
liberty and will cooperate in the trial proceedings.

93
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
5. Per contra, learned A.A.G. has vehemently opposed the prayer
for bail and submitted that though an e-way bill was obtained from
the GST Department regarding the purchase and transportation of
5,21,000 bottles from Saili Traders to Mahakal Medical Store of
the applicant, the same was shown to have been transferred to
eight other firms, but, in fact, it was never transferred to those
firms and was diverted for other purposes. It was further
submitted that a huge amount was also transferred to the account
of the applicant’s firm, which the applicant further transferred to
the account of Saili Traders. The transaction also shows that the
firms to which the applicant had sold Phensedyl cough syrup, had
deposited huge amount of cash in their bank accounts, without
any further business or transactions relating to the allegedly
purchased bottles of Phensedyl. It is further submitted that the
rent agreement of the applicant’s firm with the landlord was found
to be forged and the shop of Mahakal Medical Store was found to
be the same as that of the M/s DSA firma. It is further submitted
that eight firms which had allegedly purchased the phensedyl
cough syrup from the applicant’s firm had also been shown to
have purchased phensedyl cough syrup from different medical
firms without receiving actual supply or any business. Thereafter,
funds were continuously transferred to Saili Traders through other
firms.
6. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record. It is not in dispute that the
applicant is a proprietor of Mahakal Pharma, which purchased
5,21,000 bottles of New Phensedyl cough syrup having codeine in
permitted quantity. Applicant's firm had transferred the aforesaid
purchased bottles of New Phensedyl cough syrup to 8 different
firms and during investigation, these firms were found to be
existing on papers and huge amount was deposited in the
accounts of these 8 firms, which was transferred in the account of
the applicant's firm and the applicant further transferred the same

94
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
in the account of Saili Traders. Though there is an e-way bill
regarding transportation of 5,21,000 bottles of New Phensedyl
cough syrup from the applicant's firm to eight different firms, but
during investigation, it was found that the toll plaza traceability
report as well as the statement of the transporter show that there
was no actual delivery of the above bottles of codeine-based
cough syrup to the 8 different firms and the agreement of the shop
of the applicant was subsequently found to be forged, as there
was no shop of the applicant to store any medicine. Prima facie,
this Court is of the view that the applicant was involved in
diverting the huge quantity of codeine-based cough syrup for the
purpose other than medicine. Therefore, this Court is not inclined
to release the applicant on bail.
7. Accordingly, the bail application filed on behalf of the applicant
is hereby rejected. 
74. Cri. Misc. Bail Application No.14465 of 2026 (Abhinav Kumar
Yadav Vs. State of U.P.)
1. Heard Ms. Divya Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and
Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned AAG for the State.
2. Instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to release
the applicant on bail during the trial in Case Crime No.235/2025
under Sections (8/21) / 26(D) / 29 N.D.P.S. Act and section 61(2),
318(4), 338 336(3), 340(2) of B.N.S., P.S.-Kotwali, District-
Varanasi.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant
is the proprietor of Khathu Pharma. The applicant was not named
in the FIR, and his name was surfaced during investigation. The
allegation against the applicant is that, although he purchased
2,25,999 bottles of new phensedyl cough syrup (10 ml each) from
Saili Traders as per the GST E-Way Bill, he could not show any
document regarding the purchase or any order placed with Saili

95
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
Traders. Further allegation against the applicant is that he
allegedly transferred and sold the aforesaid phensedyl cough
syrups to six non-existing firms, namely Sakshi Medical, Shiv
Enterprises, Sana Medicals, Bhairav Medical Agencies, Akash
Distributors and Divya Medical. However, E-way bills show the
transportation but the traceability report shows that there was no
actual delivery to the purchasing firms. Even the stock could not
be found either at the applicant’s firm or with the person to whom
the applicant allegedly sold the phensedyl cough syrup.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the
applicant is a drug license holder and authorised to purchase and
sell the medicine and, during the ordinary course of business, he
purchased 2,25,999 bottles of new phensedyl and further sold to
six other firms. If the purchasing firm diverted the same, the
applicant could not be held liable for the illegal activities. It is
further submitted that the charge sheet has been filed; therefore,
custodial interrogation is not required. The applicant has no
criminal history. In case he is granted bail, he will not misuse the
liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial proceedings.
5. Per contra, learned AAG for the State vehemently opposed the
submissions and submitted that information regarding purchase of
2,25,999 bottles of cough syrups was obtained on the basis of E-
way Bill of GST Department, but no other document was
produced by the applicant regarding purchase or placing the order
for purchase of phensedyl bottles from Saili Traders. It was further
submitted that even the alleged sale of the phensedyl bottles to
six firms were found to be fake, as the traceability report shows no
actual transportation to the purchasing firm and that the
phensedyl cough syrup was diverted to different places for
intoxication. It is further submitted that the firms shown to be the
purchaser of phensedyl cough syrup from the applicant’s firm
were found to have cash deposed in their bank account without

96
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
involving in any business, and the same was transferred to the
applicant, and he further transferred the same to Saili Traders.
6. It was further submitted that several phensedyl bottles
recovered at Malda and Tripura belonged to the same batch
number which the applicant purchased from Saili Traders. It is
also submitted that three purchasing firms, namely Sakshi
Medical, Sana Medicals, and Bhairav Medical Agencies, though
shown to have purchased phensedyl cough syrup from the
applicant’s firm, did not transfer any amount to the account of the
applicant’s firm. However, the applicant’s firm transferred the
entire price of phensedyl bottles to Saili Traders. It is further
submitted that the firms to which the applicant allegedly sold the
phensedyl syrup were found to be non-existing firm in reality, and
even the office address of the applicant's firm was same as of M/s
DSA pharma. It is lastly submitted that the shop rent agreement of
the applicant’s firm was also found to be forged; therefore, he is
not entitled to bail.
7. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record. From the perusal of the record, it
is clear that the applicant is a proprietor of Khatu Pharma and he
had purchased 2,25,999 bottles of New Phensedyl cough syrup
containing codeine from Saili Traders (proprietor Bhola Prasad),
but on inspection, no document regarding the purchase, stock or
sale of the New Phensedyl cough syrup allegedly purchased from
Saili Traders was found, though the e-way bill shows
transportation of the aforesaid bottles of cough syrup from Saili
Traders to the firm of the applicant. The e-way bills of subsequent
transfer show that the applicant had transferred New Phensedyl
cough syrup purchased from Saili Traders to 6 different firms, but
vehicle numbers mentioned in the e-way bills regarding
transportation of cough syrup from the applicant's firm to the other
6 different firms belong to three-wheeler, school buses and

97
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
ambulances. Out of the aforesaid 6 different firms, 3 firms
deposited cash amounts in the account of the applicant, whereas
the remaining 3 firms did not deposit even a single amount in the
account of the applicant, even then the applicant deposited the
entire price of New Phensedyl cough syrup to Saili Traders. It was
further found that a huge quantity of bottles of the same batch
number, which were purchased by the applicant from Saili
Traders, were recovered in Malda and Tripura during illegal
transportation for the purpose other than medicine. Even the
statement of one witness, Akash, who was the proprietor of Akash
Traders, recorded under Section 183 BNSS, also shows that the
applicant was actively involved in opening fake firms for preparing
forged invoices regarding purchase of codeine based cough
syrup. From the perusal of the record, this Court prima facie finds
that the applicant is actively involved in the conspiracy of
transportation of huge quantity of codeine-based cough syrup for
the purpose other than medical use, which would attract the
provision of NDPS Act . Therefore, this Court is not inclined to
release the applicant on bail.
8. Accordingly, the bail application filed on behalf of the applicant
is hereby rejected. Application, if any, stands disposed of. 
75. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 17056 of 2026 (Badal Arya
Vs. State of U.P.)
1. Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the
applicant and learned AAG for the State.
2. Instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to release
the applicant on bail during the trial in Case Crime No.235 of 2025
under section 8/21/29 of N.D.P.S. Act and Sections 61(2), 318(4),
338, 336(3), 340(2) of B.N.S., Police Station-Kotwali, District-
Varanasi.

98
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant
was not named in the FIR and his name was surfaced during
investigation. The allegation against the applicant is that he
purchased 1,23,000 bottles of new Phensedyl cough syrup from
Saili Traders, though there was no document regarding the order
or invoice in the applicant's office. It is further alleged that
applicant had shown the transfer of the above purchased
Phensedyl bottles to Sana Medicals, Varanasi, Shiv Medical,
Chandauli, Bhairav Medical Agencies, Chandauli and Akash
Distributors, Varanasi, however, the sale was only on paper based
through the E-way Bill, and Phensedyl bottles were not actually
delivered to the purchasing firms.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that that the
applicant is drug license holder to deal with business of medicine
and during course of business, he purchased 1,23,000 bottles
from Saili Trader and further sold the same to five other firms
namely Sana Medicals, Varanasi, Shiv Medical, Chandauli,
Bhairav Medical Agencies, Chandauli and Akash Distributors,
Varanasi and also transferred the amount of purchase bottles to
Saili Traders after getting the same from purchasing firm. It is
lastly submitted that the charge sheet has been filed; therefore,
custodial interrogation is not required. The applicant has no
criminal history. In case he is granted bail, he will not misuse the
liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial proceedings.
5. Per contra, learned AAG vehemently opposed the prayer and
submitted that though the GST E-way Bill shows transfer of
1,23,000/- bottles from Saili Trader to the applicant firm, there was
no document showing any order was placed or any invoice
regarding the aforesaid purchase, and even the E-way Bill
obtained from GST Department shows, the applicant had
transferred phensedyl bottles to Sana Medicals, Varanasi, Bhairav
Medical Agencies, Chandauli and Akash Distributors, Varanasi.

99
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
However, the Toll traceability Report shows that no such
consignment was transported to these purchasing firms. It is
further submitted that, except Sana Medicals, the other
purchasing firms transferred the amount to the applicant's account
without purchasing any phensedyl bottles, and the account
statements of the purchasing firms also show that a large amount
of cash was deposited through different handlers and was finally
credited to the account of Saili Traders by the applicant’s firm. It is
also submitted that, to open the firm of the applicant, co-accused
Ankur, proprietor of Mahakal Medical, issued an experience
certificate, and the rent agreement for the shop of the applicant’s
firm was also found to be forged. It was also surprising that the
vehicle number mentioned in the E-way Bill for transporting
phensedyl cough syrups by the applicant to five different firms
belongs to car, ambulance, and scooty. Therefore entire
consignment of phensedyl bottles purchased from Saili Trader
have been diverted in open market to use the same as intoxicant.
However, the huge amount has been deposited in the account of
Saili Trader; therefore the applicant is not entitled to be released
on bail.
6. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record. It is not in dispute that the
applicant is a proprietor of Mahakal Pharma, which purchased
1,23,000 bottles of New Phensedyl cough syrup having codeine in
permitted quantity. It was further found that the applicant's firm
had transferred the aforesaid purchased bottles of New
Phensedyl cough syrup to 4 different firms and during
investigation, these firms were found to be existing on papers and
huge cash amount was deposited in the accounts of these 4 firms,
which was transferred in the account of the applicant's firm and
the applicant further transferred the same in the account of Saili
Traders. Though there is an e-way bill regarding transportation of
1,23,000 bottles of New Phensedyl cough syrup from the

100
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
applicant's firm to four different firms, but during investigation, it
was found that the toll plaza traceability report as well as the
statement of the transporter show that there was no actual
delivery of the above bottles of codeine-based cough syrup to the
4 different firms and the agreement of the shop of the applicant
was found to be forged, as there was no shop of the applicant to
store any medicine. Prima facie, this Court is of the view that the
applicant was involved in diverting the huge quantity of codeine-
based cough syrup for the purpose other than medicine.
Therefore, this Court is not inclined to release the applicant on
bail.
7. Accordingly, the bail application filed on behalf of the applicant
is hereby rejected. Application, if any, stands disposed of. 
76. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 20719 of 2026 (Vaibhav
Jaiswal Vs. State of U.P.)
1. Heard Sri Neeraj Tripathi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by
Sri Divesh Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and learned
AGA for the State.
2. Instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to release
the applicant on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 235 of
2025 under sections 8, 21, 29, 26(d) of the N.D.P.S. Act and
Sections 61(2), 318(4), 336(3), 338 and 340(2) of the B.N.S.,
Police Station Kotwali, District Varanasi.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant
was not named in the FIR. Subsequently, during investigation, his
name surfaced on the basis of information received from the
informer. The allegation against the applicant is that he is a
handler of Saili Traders and, on its behalf, he used to deposit
money and also helped in opening the account in the name of the
wife of co-accused Subham Jaiswal. It is further submitted that,
from the applicant's house, a recovery of Rs. 22,62,350 was

101
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
shown, along with an iPhone with a Rs. 10 note at the back of the
cover. Further, it is alleged that the applicant transferred crores of
rupees to Shubham Jaiswal through Hawala. It is further
submitted that the amount shown to be recovered from the house
of the applicant belongs to him as the applicant himself is a
businessman dealing in liquor. Therefore, recovery of Rs.
22,62,350/- is not unusual from the house of a businessman.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that from
the statement of the Branch Manager, it is clear that all the
signatures made in account opening form as well as other
documents belong the wife of Subham Jaiswal and were not
forged by the applicant. There is no material showing that the
applicant has ever transferred the money to Subham Jaiswal
through hawala. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that
merely on the statement of four co-accused persons, the applicant
has been falsely implicated regarding involvement in hawala
transaction for transferring the money to Subham Jaiswal.
However, these four persons were subsequently made accused in
the present case. The charge sheet has been filed; therefore,
there is no requirement for custodial interrogation. The applicant
has no criminal history. If he is granted bail, he will not misuse his
liberty and will cooperate in the trial proceedings.
5. Sri Pritosh Malviya, learned AGA, vehemently opposed the
prayer and submitted that on checking the CCTV footage by the
I.O., it was found that one Ashok Chaoudhary used to come at the
shop of the applicant, who was a close associate of Shubham
Jaiswal and involved in transferring money to Subham Jaiswal
through Hawala. Thereafter, police raided at flat of Ashok
Chaudhary and recovered more than Rs.19,00,000/- and
statements of Ashok Chaudhary, Mohit, Ramavatar and Giridhari
were also recorded. They admitted that they transferred money to

102
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
Subham Jaiswal through hawala on the instructions of the present
applicant. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to bail.
6. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.
7. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case,
submissions of learned counsel for the parties, it is not in dispute
that the applicant is a proprietor of Kal Bhavirav Traders and he
was not named in the FIR; his name surfaced as an accused
during investigation with the allegation that the applicant was the
handler of the money of Saili Traders and he used to send money
to Shubham Jaiswal (competent person of Saili Traders) through
Hawala and also helped in opening an account in the name of the
wife of Shubham Jaiswal. However, except for the recovery of
₹22,62,350/- from the house of the applicant, there is no material
against him. The applicant is a businessman dealing in liquor
therefore above recovery is not unusual and keeping in view the
nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and taking
into account the fact that the charge-sheet has already been filed
and considering the overcrowded jails and heavy pendency of
criminal cases before the trial courts as well as considering the
mandate of the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Kapil
Wadhawan vs Central Bureau of Investigation reported in 2025
SCC OnLine SC 3038 as well as guideline of this Court in the
case of Maya Tiwari Vs. State of U.P., 2024 SCC Online All 6765
regarding grant of bail and without expressing any opinion on the
merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled
to be enlarged on bail. Accordingly, the present application is
allowed.
8. Let the applicant- Vaibhav Jaiswal, involved in the
aforementioned crime 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.

103
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
9. The applicant shall be released on bail on the conditions
mentioned at the tail end of this judgment.
77. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.16465 of 2026 (Ram Autar
Vs. State of U.P.), 16482 of 2026 (Girdhari vs State of U.P.),
16536 of 2026 (Mohit vs State of U.P.)
1. Heard Sri Pavan Kumar Rao, learned counsel for the applicant
and Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned AAG for the State.
2. All the aforesaid bail applications (Bail Application No.16465 of
2026, 16482 of 2026 and 16536 of 2026) arise from the same
case crime numbers and same facts; therefore, the same is being
decided by this common order.
3. The instant applications have been filed with a prayer to
release the applicants on bail during the trial in Case Crime No.
235 of 2025, under Sections 27-A, 29 of The Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station- Kotwali,
District-Varanasi.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the
applicants were not named in the FIR. Subsequently, on arrest of
co-accused Ashok Chaudhary, his flat was raided, wherein from a
room, co-accused Mohit was apprehended along with a black
bag. Thereafter, another flat was raided, from which the applicant,
Ram Avtar, and Girdhari were apprehended, and a blue bag was
also recovered from the room. Thereafter, both the bags were
opened in the police station, and it was found that the black bag
recovered from the flat of Ashok Choudhary was containing more
than three lakh rupees, and the blue bag recovered from the other
flat in the presence of the applicant, Ram Avtar and Giridhari was
containing 5 lakh rupees.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants has further submitted that
there was no public witness of the aforesaid recovery and the

104
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
procedure of Section 105 BNSS has not been complied with;
therefore, the aforesaid recovery is absolutely false. It is further
submitted that the allegation against the applicant is that he was
involved in sending the illegally earned money from the sale of
codeine syrup to Shubham Jaiswal through hawala wothout being
any evidence. The applicant has no criminal history. He further
relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of ITC
Ltd. vs State of Karnataka, arising out of Civil Appeal No. 11798 of
2025. The charge sheet has been filed; therefore, custodial
interrogation is not required. In case he is granted bail, he will not
misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial
proceedings.
6. Learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted
that while making search and recovery of the flat from where the
applicant was arrested, videography as required by Section 105
BNSS was conducted, and even at the time of opening the bags
and counting the money, videography was also conducted in
compliance with Section 105 BNSS. It is further submitted that a
token note of Rs. 10 was also found in the applicant's mobile
phone, which was used in hawala transaction. Therefore, the
applicant is not entitled to bail.
7. I have heard the submissions of learned counsel for the rival
parties and perused the record.
8. Considering the fact that the applicants are not named in the
FIR and their names have been surfaced merely on the basis of
recovery of black bag from the room of the applicant Mohit and
co-accused Ashok Choudhary containing Rs.3 lakh as well as a
blue bag from the room of the applicants Ram Autar and Giridhari
having Rs.5 lakh and there is no material that the aforesaid
amount is being kept for transfer to Subham Jaishwal (competent
person of Saili Traders). Even these bags were opened not at the
place of recovery but were opened at the police station. This

105
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
creates doubt over the prosecution story. Apart from this, there is
no other material regarding the involvement of the applicants Ram
Autar, Girdhari and Mohit in the illegal trafficking of codeine based
cough syrup or any conspiracy regarding that ,as well as charge
sheet has been filed and keeping in view the nature of offence,
evidence, complicity of accused and taking into account
overcrowded jails and heavy pendency of criminal cases before
the trial courts as well as considering the mandate of the
judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Kapil Wadhawan vs
Central Bureau of Investigation reported in 2025 SCC Online SC
3038 as well as guideline of this Court in the case of Maya Tiwari
vs State of U.P. reported in 2024 SCC Online All 6765 regarding
grant of bail and without expressing any opinion on the merits of
the case, I am of the opinion that the applicants are entitled to be
enlarged on bail.
9. Let the applicants- Ram Autar, Girdhari and Mohit involved in
the aforementioned crime be released on bail, on their furnishing
a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, to the
satisfaction of the court concerned.
10. The applicants shall be released on bail on the conditions
mentioned at the tail end of this judgment.
78. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.17389 of 2026 (Om
Prakash Kharwar Vs. State of U.P.)
1. Heard Sri Manoj Pandey, Advocate, holding brief of Smt.
Rukmani Ojha, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA
for the State.
2. Instant application has been filed with a prayer to release the
applicant on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 235 of 2025,
under Sections 27(A) and 29 of N.D.P.S. Act at Police Station
Kotwali, District-Varanasi.

106
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant
was not named in the FIR. Subsequently,, during investigation,
the applicant's name surfaced in the confessional statements of
co-accused Ram Avtar, Giridhari, Ashok, and Mohit; however,
there is no incriminating material against the applicant,, and he
has been falsely implicated solely on the basis of the confessional
statements of co-accused. The applicant has no criminal history
and the charge sheet has been filed. In case he is granted bail, he
will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial
proceedings.
4. Learned AGA opposed the aforesaid submissions but could not
dispute the aforesaid facts.
5. I have heard the submissions of learned counsel for the rival
parties and perused the record.
6. Considering the fact that the applicant was not named in the
FIR and his name was surfaced on the confessional statements of
Ram Autar, Ashok Choudhary and Mohit and there is no material
regarding involvement of the applicant in illegal trafficking of
codeine based cough syrup or any conspiracy regarding that and
keeping in view the nature of offence, evidence, complicity of
accused and taking into account overcrowded jails and heavy
pendency of criminal cases before the trial courts as well as
considering the mandate of the judgement of the Apex Court in
the case of Kapil Wadhawan vs Central Bureau of Investigation
reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 3038 as well as guideline of this
Court in the case of Maya Tiwari vs State of U.P. reported in 2024
SCC Online All 6765 regarding grant of bail and without
expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the
opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
7. Let the applicant- Om Prakash Kharwar involved in the
aforementioned crime be released on bail, on his furnishing a

107
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, to the
satisfaction of the court concerned.
8. The applicant shall be released on bail on the conditions
mentioned at the tail end of this judgment.
79. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.19353 of 2026 (Santosh
Giri Vs. State of U.P.)
1. Heard Sri Manoj Kumar, holding brief of Smt. Rukmani Ojha,
learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.
2. Instant application has been filed with a prayer to release the
applicant on bail during the trial present Application and release
the Applicant on bail In Case Crime No. 235 of 2025, under
Sections 27 A, 29 of N.D.P.S. Act at Police Station- Kotwali,
District-Varanasi.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant
was not named in the FIR. However, during the investigation, in
the confessional statements of Ramavatar, Giridhari, Mohit and
Ashok, wherein the allegations were made that the applicant had
provided a vehicle for transporting cash, which was used to
transfer money to Subham Jaishwal through hawala.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that during
investigation, no material was found to establish that the alleged
vehicle, which the applicant provided to the accused, belonged to
him, and there is no material that the applicant had provided a
vehicle for transporting the cash for hawala purposes, except the
confessional statement of co-accused. The applicant has no
criminal history. The police have filed the charge sheet; therefore,
there is no requirement for custodial interrogation. If he is granted
bail, he will not misuse his liberty and will cooperate in the trial
proceedings.

108
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
5. Learned AGA for the State opposed the prayer but could not
dispute the aforesaid facts.
6. I have heard the submissions of learned counsel for the rival
parties and perused the record.
7. Considering the fact that the applicant was not named in the
FIR and his name was surfaced in the confessional statement of
co-accused Ram Autar, Girdhari and Mohit regarding the fact that
the applicant has provided vehicle for transporting the cash to
Shubham Jaiswal ( competent person of Saili Traders) through
Hawala though there is no material showing that the
applicant’ownership of vehicle or recovery thereof; coupled with
the fact that charge sheet has been filed and keeping in view the
nature of offence, evidence, complicity of accused and taking into
account overcrowded jails and heavy pendency of criminal cases
before the trial courts as well as considering the mandate of the
judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Kapil Wadhawan vs
Central Bureau of Investigation reported in 2025 SCC Online SC
3038 as well as guideline of this Court in the case of Maya Tiwari
vs State of U.P. reported in 2024 SCC Online All 6765 regarding
grant of bail and without expressing any opinion on the merits of
the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be
enlarged on bail.
8. Let the applicant- Santosh Giri involved in the aforementioned
crime 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.
9. The applicant shall be released on bail on the conditions
mentioned at the tail end of this judgment.
80. Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.19531 of 2026 (Himanshu
Kasera Vs. State of U.P.)

109
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
1. Heard Sri Ashutosh Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant
and Sri Paritosh Malviya, learned AGA for the State.
2.Instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to release
the applicant on bail during the trial in Case Crime No.235 of
2025, under Section (8/21) / 26 (D) 29 of N.D.P.S. Act and Section
61(2), 318(4) 338, 336(3), 340(2) B.N.S., Police StationKotwali,
District-Varanasi.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant
was not named in the FIR in the present case. However, during
the investigation, the applicant's name surfaced in the statements
of Gautam Kasera and Durgesh Verma. In his statement, Gautam
Kasera stated that the applicant introduced him to Akash Pathak
for a job and thereafter the applicant as well as Gautam Kasera
started working therein as an employee of Akash Pathak. It is
further alleged that applicant persuaded Durgesh Verma to open a
pharma agency and also opened an account operated by co-
accused Subham Jaishwal and also the allegation applicant is a
handler of Shubham Jaiswal and used to send money to Subham
Jaiswal through hawala; a photo of a Rs. 10 note was also found
in the applicant's mobile, which was used as a code in the hawala
transaction.
4. It is further submitted by applicant’s counsel that except the
confessional statement of the co-accused, there is no material
showing that the applicant was working as a handler of co-
accused Shubham Jaiswal for transferring money to him. It is
further submitted that the alleged screenshot of chats on the
applicant's mobile does not show any connection with illegal
dealing in phensedyl cough syrup or any other illegal activity. It is
further submitted that he has explained the criminal history of one
case in the accompanying affidavit. The police have filed the
charge sheet; therefore, there is no requirement for custodial
interrogation.

110
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
5. Sri Paritosh Malviya, learned AGA, vehemently opposed the
prayer and submitted that the witness Durgesh Verma clearly
stated about the involvement of the applicant in opening the
medical agency in his name by the applicant and co-accused
Prashant Kasera. Subsequently, applicant himself confessed to
be a money handler for co accused Shubham Jaiswal and
involvement in Hawala transactions, as well as depositing money
into the account of M/S Bajrang Medical Agencies of Durgesh
Verma. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to bail.
6. I have heard the submissions of learned counsel for the rival
parties and perused the record.
7. Considering the fact that the applicant was not named in the
FIR and his name surfaced in the confessional statement of co-
accused and only allegation against the applicant is that he is
cash handler of co-accused Shubham Jaiswal though there is no
other material showing that the applicant has any connection with
the illegal dealing in codeine based cough syrup or other illegal
activities; coupled with the fact that charge sheet has been filed
and keeping in view the nature of offence, evidence, complicity of
accused and taking into account overcrowded jails and heavy
pendency of criminal cases before the trial courts as well as
considering the mandate of the judgement of the Apex Court in
the case of Kapil Wadhawan vs Central Bureau of Investigation
reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 3038 as well as guideline of this
Court in the case of Maya Tiwari vs State of U.P. reported in 2024
SCC Online All 6765 regarding grant of bail and without
expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the
opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
8. Let the applicant- Himanshu Kasera involved in the
aforementioned crime 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.

111
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
81. Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.18059 of 2026 (Rohit Kumar
Verma Vs. State of U.P.)
1. Heard Sri Pranav Tiwary, learned counsel for the applicant and
Sri Paritosh Malviya, learned AGA for the State.
2. Instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to release
the applicant on bail during the trial in Case Crime No.313 of
2025, under Sections 8/21/22/29 of N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station-
Ramnagar, District Varanasi.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant
was not named in the FIR, wherein an allegation has been made
that at the time of raiding the godown of Manoj Yadav, near
Sujabad, Army Ground, the applicant was found as the caretaker
of the godown and, on opening the gate of the godown, recovery
of 25950 bottles of Eskuf syrups was made by the police. One
Tata Ace vehicle bearing registration No.UP-65- AR 6253 was
also recovered, which was used to transport the cough syrup
stored in the aforesaid godown.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the
applicant is simply a guard/caretaker of the godown of Manoj
Yadav and even the vehicle recovered from godown does not
belong to the applicant and there is no evidence against the
applicant that he was involved in the trade of recovered cough
syrup. The police have filed the charge sheet; therefore, custodial
interrogation is not required. The applicant has no criminal history.
5. Per contra, Sri Paritosh Malviya, learned AGA vehemently
opposed the prayer and submitted that actually during
investigation, it was found that the recovered bottles of Eskuf
cough syrup from godown of Manoj Yadav was actually sold by
M/s R.S. Pharma, Ghaziabad to Singh Medico and a part of that
consignment of cough syrup was recovered from the godown of
Manoj Yadav and remaining part of codiene-based cough syrup

112
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
sold by the M/s R S Pharma was also recovered in Agartal . Being
guard of the godown there is involvement of the applicant in illegal
trade of cough syrup. therefore, the applicant is not entitled to be
released on bail.
6. I have heard the submissions of learned counsel for the rival
parties and perused the record.
7. Considering the fact that the applicant was guard/care taker of
the godown of co-accused Manoj Yadav, wherefrom 25,980
bottles of Eskuf cough syrup were recovered by the police and
there is no other material against the applicant that he was aware
about the illegal transportation or storage of codeine based cough
syrup in the godown of Manoj Yadav; coupled with the fact that
charge sheet has been filed and keeping in view the nature of
offence, evidence, complicity of accused and taking into account
overcrowded jails and heavy pendency of criminal cases before
the trial courts as well as considering the mandate of the
judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Kapil Wadhawan vs
Central Bureau of Investigation reported in 2025 SCC Online SC
3038 as well as guideline of this Court in the case of Maya Tiwari
vs State of U.P. reported in 2024 SCC Online All 6765 regarding
grant of bail and without expressing any opinion on the merits of
the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be
enlarged on bail.
8. Let the applicant- Rohit Kumar Verma involved in the
aforementioned crime 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.
9. The applicant shall be released on bail on the conditions
mentioned at the tail end of this judgment.
82. CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 43070 of 2025 (Kul
Narayan Vs. State of U.P.), 45511 of 2025 (Suraj Kumar Kharwar

113
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
Vs. State of U.P.) and 43074 of 2025 (Chetnarayan Chaudhary
Vs. State of U.P.)
1. Heard Shri Shashwat Shukla, Advocate, holding brief of Shri
Shailesh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants, Suraj
Kumar Kharwar, in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 45511 of
2025, Shri Piyush Patel, learned counsel for the applicant in
Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 43074 of 2025, and Criminal
Misc. Bail Application No. 43070 of 2025, Shri Paritosh
Srivastava, and Shri Nitesh Srivastava, learned AGA for the State-
respondents.
2. Learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State
and learned counsel for the respective parties have been heard.
Since all the bail applications arise out of the same case crime
and involve identical questions of fact and law, they are being
heard together and are being decided by this common order.
3. All the bail applications are filed with a prayer to release the
applicants on bail in Case Crime no.124 of 2025, under Sections
8/22/23 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985,
Police Station- Thuthibari, District- Maharajganj, during the
pendency of trial.
4. As per the prosecution case, all the applicants were arrested in
a park situated near the India-Nepal border, in the vicinity of
Rajabadi village. At the time of their arrest, various narcotic and
psychotropic substances were allegedly recovered from their
possession, including Promethazine Hydrochloride injections 137,
Spas-Pus capsules 650 tablets, 718 Proxycose-spas capsules,
951 Proximec- spas tablets, 951 tablets Diazepam injections, 145
Buprenophine injections, 142 Spasmo-Proxyvon Plus capsules
104 and Nitrazepam 161 tablets. Police also allegedly recovered
two motorcycles, namely a Bajaj Pulsar and a Suzuki motorcycle,
along with Nepalese currency amounting to Rs. 2,83,030/- and

114
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
Indian currency amounting to Rs. 2,960/-. Certain other
pharmaceutical preparations were also allegedly recovered from
the applicants.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the
alleged recovery was not made in the presence of independent
witnesses and that the sampling of the recovered narcotic and
psychotropic substances was not conducted in accordance with
Standing Order No. 89 and the mandatory provisions of Section
52 of the NDPS Act. It is, therefore, contended that the entire
recovery proceeding is vitiated and illegal and that no offence
under the NDPS Act is made out against the applicants. It is
further submitted that the applicants have been falsely implicated
in the present case, that none of them has any criminal history
and that the charge-sheet has already been filed.
6. It has further been submitted that the alleged recovery of the
injections and tablets containing Promethazine and Codeine is
below commercial quantity. Learned counsel has relied upon the
judgment in Muhammad Asageer v. NCB, passed in Criminal
Misc. Bail Application No. 27291 of 2020, in support of his
submissions.
7. Per contra, learned A.G.A., Sri Paritosh Malviya and Sri Nitesh
Srivastava, have opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that
the alleged recovery and sampling were conducted in the
presence of the Gazetted Officer and that the samples were
drawn in accordance with the prescribed procedure under the
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Rules. It is,
therefore, submitted that there has been due compliance with
Section 52 of the NDPS Act.
8. Learned A.G.A. has further submitted that the quantity of the
recovered cough syrup was 58(100ml each) and, in view of the
law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hira Singh v.

115
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
Union of India, the entire mixture is required to be taken into
consideration while determining the quantity of the narcotic
substance. On such calculation, the recovered quantity is stated
to be approximately 5.8 kg, which is much above the commercial
quantity.
9. It has also been submitted that applicants in the circumstances
of the present case, cannot claim the benefit of the exception
applicable to pharmaceutical preparations used for medical
purposes, since the applicants were allegedly found in possession
of the said preparation without any valid licence or authority and in
a quantity far exceeding the permissible limit. It is, therefore,
contended that the recovered Omerax syrup would attract the
provisions of the NDPS Act.
10. Learned A.G.A. has further submitted that even if the
recovered injections are assumed to be below commercial
quantity, the quantity of Codeine contained in the recovered
cough syrup is above the commercial quantity in view of Section
37 of the NDPS Act, and the applicants are not entitled to bail.
11. I have heard the submissions of learned counsel for the rival
parties and perused the record.
12. Considering the fact that it is not dispute the recovered tablets
and injections contains quantity of narcotic drugs and
psychotropic substance below the commercial quantities however,
58 bottles of Omerax codeine based cough syrup from the
possession of three accused persons itself is not a narcotic drugs
and there is no material that the applicants were having the same
for the purpose of transporting or selling it for intoxication and
there is no public witness of the aforesaid recovery and none of
the applicants has criminal history and charge sheet has been
filed and keeping in view the nature of offence, evidence,
complicity of accused and taking into account overcrowded jails

116
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
and heavy pendency of criminal cases before the trial courts as
well as considering the mandate of the judgement of the Apex
Court in the case of Kapil Wadhawan vs Central Bureau of
Investigation reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 3038 as well as
guideline of this Court in the case of Maya Tiwari vs State of U.P.
reported in 2024 SCC Online All 6765 regarding grant of bail and
without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of
the opinion that the applicants are entitled to be enlarged on bail.
13. Let the applicants- Kul Narayan, Suraj Kumar Kharwar and
Chetnarayan Choudhary involved in the aforementioned crime be
released on bail, on their furnishing a personal bond and two
sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court
concerned.
14. The applicant shall be released on bail on the conditions
mentioned at the tail end of this judgment.
83. CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16478 of 2026
(Rehan Alam Raeen Vs. State of U.P.)
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Paritosh Malviya,
learned AGA for the State-respondents, and perused the record.2.
This bail application has been moved on behalf of accused-
applicant, Rehan Alam Raeen, seeking enlargement on bail in
Case Crime No.45 of 2006, under Sections 8/22/23/29 of NDPS
Act, Police Station Thuthibari, District Maharajganj during the
pendency of the trial before the Court below.
3. As per the prosecution story, the applicant was travelling in an
Ertiga car bearing registration No. UP-53-DF-6009 and was
intercepted while entering India from the Nepal border. Upon
search of the vehicle, two cardboard boxes were allegedly
recovered, each containing 100 bottles of Codeine cough syrup.
In addition, a sum of ₹8,500/- in Indian currency and ₹150/- in

117
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
Nepalese currency was recovered from the personal search of the
applicant.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the two
cardboard boxes contained 200 bottles of Codeine-based cough
syrup and that the applicant was driver of the vehicle in question
and at per the instruction of car owner, he was transporting the
two cartons to Nepal for delivery, without any knowledge of their
contents. It is, therefore, submitted that the applicant had no
conscious possession of the alleged cough syrup. Therefore he
has not committed any offence.
5. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history
and that the charge-sheet has already been filed.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State-respondent has
vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the
applicant was found in possession of 200 bottles(each 100ml)
containing Codeine cough syrup and could not produce any
document to establish that the same were being transported for
medical purposes. It is submitted that the recovered Codeine
preparation shall be treated as a narcotic substance and, since
the vehicle was being driven by the applicant, therefore the
applicant cannot be escaped from the liability merely by claiming
that he was unaware of the contents of the cartons. Accordingly, it
is submitted that the applicant is not entitled to be enlarged on
bail.
7. I have heard the submissions of learned counsel for the rival
parties and perused the record.
8. Considering the fact that the applicant was driver of the car and
he was transporting two corrugated sealed cardboard boxes
having 100 bottles of codeine based cough syrup each and which
was being transported by him at the instructions of car owner’s
son without being consciousness about the contents therein.

118
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
Therefore considering the small number of bottles(200) of cough
syrup having permitted quantity of codiene and taking into
account that the applicant is driver of the vehicle but not aware
about the actual contents in the sealed cardboard boxes and
there is no material showing that the above 200 bottles of codeine
based cough syrup are being transported for the purpose of other
than medical use and taking into account the applicant has no
criminal history; coupled with the fact that charge sheet has been
filed and keeping in view the nature of offence, evidence,
complicity of accused and taking into account overcrowded jails
and heavy pendency of criminal cases before the trial courts as
well as considering the mandate of the judgement of the Apex
Court in the case of Kapil Wadhawan vs Central Bureau of
Investigation reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 3038 as well as
guideline of this Court in the case of Maya Tiwari vs State of U.P.
reported in 2024 SCC Online All 6765 regarding grant of bail and
without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of
the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
9. Let the applicant- Rehan Alam Raeen involved in the
aforementioned crime 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.
10. The applicant shall be released on bail on the conditions
mentioned at the tail end of this judgment.
84. Crl Misc. Bail Application No. 27164 of 2026 (Ghanshyam Vs.
State of U.P.)
1. Heard Sri Udai Karan Saxena, learned Senior Advocate
assisted by Ms. Divya Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant,
Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned A.A.G. for the State and perused the
record.

119
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
2. The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to
release the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 235 of 2025,
under Sections 8/21/26(D)/29 N.D.P.S. Act and Section 61(2),
318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) of B.N.S., P.S. Kotwali, District-
Varanasi, during the pendency of the trial.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant
was not named in the FIR; subsequently, during the course of
investigation, the applicant has been falsely implicated in the
present case merely on the ground that, though as per the e-way
bill provided by the applicant, he purchased 3,29,000/- bottles of
new Phensedyl (codeine-based cough syrup), he did not take
actual delivery of the same. It is further submitted that the
applicant is a licence holder in medicines; therefore, during the
course of business, he purchased 3,29,000/- bottles of new
Phensedyl (codeine-based cough syrup) and further sold these
bottles to five different firms. The price of the purchased cough
syrup was also transferred to Saili Traders after receiving
payment from the five firms to whom the applicant had further sold
the above cough syrup. It is further submitted that there is no
material showing that the bottles of new Phensedyl cough syrup
purchased by the applicant were misused by him by transporting
the same for intoxication. It is also submitted that merely because
some of the bottles purchased by the applicant were found in
Tripura and West Bengal does not make him liable, as the same
may have been misused by the firms which had purchased the
cough syrup from the applicant. It is further submitted that the
applicant has no criminal history. It is further submitted that the
charge sheet has been filed in the present case; therefore,
custodial interrogation is not required. The applicant is a law-
abiding citizen and has been languishing in jail since 08.02.2026.
If he is granted bail, he will not misuse his liberty and will
cooperate in the trial proceedings.

120
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
4. Per contra, learned AAG has vehemently opposed the prayer
for bail and submitted that as per the traceability report of the
concerned toll plaza, the vehicles shown in the e-way bills ,the
purchased bottles were transported to the godown or shop of the
applicant, whereas the same were recovered from different parts
of the country, including Tripura and West Bengal. It is further
submitted that the GST e-way bills provided by the applicant show
that he had sold the purchased cough syrup from Saili Traders to
five different firms, namely, Welcome Pharma, Shri Balaji Traders,
Sana Medicals, Bhairav Medicals and Akash Distributors, which
were found to be non-existent and, during the course of
investigation, it was found that these firms neither transported of
the purchased Phensedyl bottles nor had any stock of the same.
Therefore, all the Phensedyl cough syrup which the applicant
purchased had been diverted for intoxication. It is further
submitted that the account transactions show that the applicant
had transferred Rs. 5,27,35,407/ to the account of Saili Traders
towards the sale of Phensedyl bottles by Saili Traders to the
applicant’s firm, without actually receiving the consignment of the
purchased bottles. He prepared forged invoices showing the
purchase of Phensedyl bottles from Saili Traders, whereas, in
fact, the same were diverted by Saili Traders at different places
for using as intoxicants. It is also submitted that the vehicles
mentioned in the e-way bills for transporting the cough syrup by
the applicant to different firms were found to be motorcycles, e-
rickshaws, government vehicles, and, in some cases, non-existing
vehicles. It is also submitted that the owner of the rented shop of
the applicant, stated that although he had given the shop to the
applicant on rent, the shop was only occasionally opened. There
was no actual storage of any medicine therein. Therefore, it is
also submitted that the applicant is involved in a conspiracy with
Saili Traders by preparing forged purchase invoices to divert the
Phensedyl bottles for a purpose other than medicinal use.

121
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
5. I have heard the submissions of learned counsel for the rival
parties and perused the record.
6. Considering the submissions and taking into account the fact
that it is not in dispute that the applicant has purchased 3,39,000/-
bottles of new phensendyl cough syrup having permitted quantity
of codeine and applicant has subsequently sold these bottles of
new phensedyl to five different firm but vehicle numbers
mentioned in the E-way Bills regarding transporting of bottles from
the firm of the applicant to five purchaser firms, belong to e-
rickshaw, ambulance and government vehicles as well as none
existing vehicle. It was also found during investigation that above
bottles of same batch allegedly purchased by the applicant from
the Saili Traders were recovered from Tripura and West Bengal
during illegal transportation for the purposes other than medical
use. Though the applicant has transferred Rs. 5,27,35,407/- in the
account of Saili Traders and there is no material showing the
above actual delivery of any medicine including cough syrup to
the applicant.These facts indicate the diversion of the huge
quantity of codeine based cough syrup for the purpose other than
medical use, therefore, this Court is not inclined to release the
applicant on bail.
7. Therefore, his bail application is rejected.
85. Crl Misc. Bail Application No. 25007 of 2026 (Anant Dev Vs.
State of U.P.)
1. Heard Km. Ashra, learned counsel for the applicant and
Paritosh Malviya, learned A.G.A. for the State, and perused the
record.
2. The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to
release the applicants on bail during trial in Case Crime No.977 of
2025, under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 61(2), 3(5) BNS

122
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
and 26, 8/21 NDPS, Police Station- Kotwali City, District- Bijnor
during the pendency of the trial.
3. As per the prosecution story, a medicine shop, run by a
partnership firm M/s Shiv Shakti Bala Ji Medicos, Bijnor, having
two partners, Arun Kumar and Shivanshu Singh. Investigation
revealed that the partnership firm M/s Shiv Shakti Bala Ji
Medicos, Bijnor, purchased 48,345 bottles of codeine cough
syrup-Lykarex from Cadiz Life science, Ghaziabad, but during
inspection by drugs Inspector M/s Shiv Shakti Bala Ji Medicos,
Bijnor did not show any document regarding the sale of the same.
However, in the confessional statement of co-accused Arun
Kumar (one of the partners of M/s M/s Shiv Shakti Bala Ji
Medicos, Bijnor), he admitted to have purchased 48,345
bottles(100ml each) of codeine cough syrup (Lykarex-T) as a drug
licence holder. He also admitted that he sold many codeine-based
cough syrups to one Punit without any prescription, and Punit
further sold the same to Anant Dev (present applicant), who
further sold it to Wamik Ali, who used to sell the same in Jammu &
Kashmir through co-accused Gulfam.
4. It is further submitted that the applicant was not named in the
FIR. His name surfaced as an accused in the statements of co-
accused Arun Kumar and Wamik Ali, as well as three alleged
witnesses, namely, Aas Mohammad, Rizwan and Wajid. Still, no
codeine syrup or document was recovered from the applicant's
possession. Therefore, there is no material against the applicant.
It is further submitted that the applicant has explained the criminal
history of one case. It is further submitted that the charge sheet
has been filed in the present case; therefore, there is no
requirement of custodial interrogation. The applicant is a law-
abiding citizen and has been languishing in jail since 18.11.2025.
If he is granted bail, he will not misuse his liberty and will
cooperate in the trial proceedings.

123
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer
for bail and submitted that the name of the applicant surfaced as
an accused in the statement of one Aas Mohammad, who was a
taxi driver, as well as in the statements of co-accused Arun Kumar
and Wamik Ali and other two witnesses, Rizwan and Wajid. It is
further submitted that the CDR report of the applicant's mobile
phone shows that the applicant was in continuous touch with co-
accused Punit, Wamik, and Gulfam. Therefore, the applicant is a
part of the conspiracy to divert the codeine cough syrup for
intoxication in Jammu & Kashmir. Therefore, the applicant is not
entitled to be released on bail.
6. I have heard the submissions of learned counsel for the rival
parties and perused the record.
7. Considering the aforesaid submissions that allegation against
the applicant is that he used to purchase codeine based cough
syrup from co-accused Puneet and then sold to co-accused
Wamik Ali who was involved in illegal transportation of codeine
based cough syrup to Jammu and Kashmir through one Gulfam.
However, there is no material against the present applicant except
confessional statement of co-accused persons coupled with the
fact that charge sheet has been filed and keeping in view the
nature of offence, evidence, complicity of accused and taking into
account overcrowded jails and heavy pendency of criminal cases
before the trial courts as well as considering the mandate of the
judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Kapil Wadhawan vs
Central Bureau of Investigation reported in 2025 SCC Online SC
3038 as well as guideline of this Court in the case of Maya Tiwari
vs State of U.P. reported in 2024 SCC Online All 6765 regarding
grant of bail and without expressing any opinion on the merits of
the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be
enlarged on bail.

124
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
8. Let the applicant- Anant Dev involved in the aforementioned
crime 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.
9. The applicant shall be released on bail on the conditions
mentioned at the tail end of this judgment.
86. Crl Misc. Bail Application Nos. 25031 of 2026 (Akash
Chauhan Vs. State of U.P.) and 24890 of 2026 (Tushar Kumar Vs.
State of U.P.)
1. Heard Sri Amit Daga, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Gaurav
Srivasta, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Paritosh
Malviya, learned AGA for the State.
2. The bail application Nos. 25031 of 2026 and 24890 of 2026
have been filed, praying for release of the applicants on bail
during trial in Case Crime No. 0978 of 2025, under Sections
318(4), 61(2), 3(5) BNS and 26, 8/21 NDPS Act, Police Station-
Kotwali City, District- Bijnor.
3. The above two bail applications arise out of the same case
crime number; therefore, the same is being decided by this
common order.
4. As per the prosecution story, during the inspection of a
medicine shop, namely, M/s S.V. Medical Store, Bijnor (firm
partners- Mr Akash Chauhan and Mr.Tushar Kumar), by the Drug
Inspector on 18.11.25, it was found that this firm purchased
48,447 bottles of codeine cough syrup Lykarex-T from Cadiz Life
Science, Ghaziabad, but M/s S.V. Medical Store did not show any
document regarding sale of the same. However, in the
confessional statement of Akash Chauhan, who was one of the
partners and also the competent person of M/s S.V. Medical
Store, admitted to purchase 48,447 bottles of codeine cough
syrup as a drug licence holder. He also admitted that he sold

125
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
many codeine-based cough syrups to one Puneet without any
prescription, and Puneet sold the same to Anant, who further sold
it to Wamik Ali, who sold the same in Jammu & Kashmir for
intoxication.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the
applicants are partners in M/s S.V. Medical Store, Bijnor, and the
Drug Inspector inspected the medical shop of the applicants and,
on checking the documents, it was found that the firm of the
applicants purchased 48,447 bottles of codeine syrup, namely
Lykarex-T, having permitted codeine and used as a cough
suppressant medicine. The allegations against the applicants are
that they sold the cough syrup to co-accused Puneet without a
medical prescription or keeping any record, as required under the
Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1885.
6. Contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that the firm
of the applicants is having drug licence as retailers and have a
valid E-way Bill of the GST Department for transporting the
aforesaid purchased codeine based syrup from Cadiz Life
Science, Ghaziabad. It is further submitted that the names of the
applicants came into the picture when certain bottles of codeine-
based syrup was recovered from Jammu and Kashmir, which
belonged to the same batch number as purchased by the
applicants from Cadiz Life Science. Allegations against the
applicants’ firm are that though the it is authorised to sell and
purchase of codeine-based cough syrup, but they sold it to co-
accused Puneet without maintaining any record or knowing the
actual purpose for which the purchaser, Puneet had purchased it.
Therefore, this could be a violation of the Drugs and Cosmetics
Act, and the applicants have been falsely implicated under the
NDPS Act, as LykarexT is not a manufactured drug under Entry
35 of the Notification dated 18.11.1985. The police have filed the
charge sheet; therefore, there is no requirement for custodial

126
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
interrogation. The applicant has explained the criminal history of
one case in the accompanying affidavit.
7. Per contra, learned AGA for the State vehemently opposed the
prayer and submitted that though it is not in dispute that the
applicants have validly purchased 48447 bottles of codeine based
syrup Lykarex-T(between 19.4.25 to 13.11.25), they sold these
bottles to Puneet (within 7 months) without keeping the record of
the purchasers and medical prescription. However, the same is
required to be maintained as per the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.
CDRs of the mobile phones of both the applicants show
conversations with Puneet, Anant, Wamik and Gulfam. Therefore,
the above facts show that the applicants knowingly sold the
codeine-based syrup for purposes other than medical use;
therefore, the applicants are entitled to be released on bail.
8. I have heard the submissions of learned counsel for the rival
parties and perused the record.
9. Considering the aforesaid submission, it is not in dispute that
the applicant’s firm Shiv Shakti Medical purchased 48,447 bottles
of codeine based cough Lykarex-T and sold the same within
seven months(about 7000 bottles per months) without any
medical prescription. CDR mobile of the applicants also show that
they were in regular touch with other co-accused like Puneet,
Wamik Ali and Gulfam, who were involved in selling and
transporting the cough syrup from U.P. to Jammu and Kashmir for
the purpose of intoxication. The applicants could not produce any
document regarding the sale of 48,447 bottles of codeine based
cough syrup or stock thereof, therefore, the applicants were
aware about the use of codeine based cough syrup for
intoxication. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to release the
applicants on bail.
10. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected.

127
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
87. Crl Misc. Bail Application No. 19867 of 2026 (Wamik Ali vs
State of U.P.)
1. Heard Sri Balbir Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and
Sri Paritosh Malviya, learned AGA for the State.
2. The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to
release the applicants on bail during trial in Case Crime No. 0978
of 2025, under Sections 318(4), 61(2), 3(5) BNS and 26, 8/21
NDPS Act, Police Station- Kotwali City, District- Bijnor.
3. As per the prosecution story, during the inspection of a
medicine shop, namely, M/s S.V. Medical Store, Bijnor( firm
partners- Mr Akash Chauhan and Mr.Tushar Kumar), by the Drug
Inspector on 18.11.25, it was found that this firm purchased
48,447 bottles of codeine cough syrup Lykarex-T from Cadiz Life
Science, Ghaziabad, but M/s S.V. Medical Store did not show any
document regarding sale of the same. However, in the
confessional statement of Akash Chauhan, who was one of the
partners and also the competent person of M/s S.V. Medical
Store, admitted to purchase 48,447 bottles of codeine cough
syrup as a drug licence holder. He also admitted that he sold
many codeine-based cough syrups to one Puneet without any
prescription, and Puneet sold the same to Anant, who further sold
it to Wamik Ali, who sold the same in Jammu & Kashmir for
intoxication
4. It is further submitted that the applicant was not named in the
FIR. His name surfaced in the statements of co-accused Akash
and Puneet as well as in the statements of witnesses Rizawan
and Aas Mohammad (taxi driver). The allegation against the
applicant is that the applicant was involved in the purchasing of
phensedyl cough syrup from co-accused Puneet and sold it to
Gulfam, who is an agent to supply the same in Jammu and
Kashmir for intoxication. However, no phensedyl bottles or

128
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
documents were recovered from the applicant's possession to
show that the applicant was involved in the conspiracy of diverting
phensedyl cough syrup for intoxication. The applicant has
explained the criminal history of one case in the accompanying
affidavit. The charge has been filed; therefore, there is no
requirement for custodial interrogation.
5. Per contra learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer and
submitted that name of the applicant was surfaced not only in the
statement of co-accused but also in the statement of witnesses
Aas Mohammad (taxi driver) and Rizwan regrading his
involvement in purchasing of codeine based cough syrup from
Anant Dev and then sold it to Gulfam and CDR report of the
mobile phone of the applicant also shows that he was in
continuous touch with the other co-accused Gulfam and Puneet,
therefore, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.
6. I have heard the submissions of learned counsel for the rival
parties and perused the record.
7. Considering the aforesaid submissions and taking into account
the allegation against the applicant is he after purchasing the
codeine based cough syrup from Anant Dev further sold to it
Gulfam who was allegedly involved in illegal selling of codeine
based cough syrup in Jammu and Kashmir but there is no
material against the applicant except the confessional statement
of co-accused as well as statement of taxi driver Aas Mohammad
regarding purchase and sale of codeine based cough syrup
coupled with the fact that charge sheet has been filed and
keeping in view the nature of offence, evidence, complicity of
accused and taking into account overcrowded jails and heavy
pendency of criminal cases before the trial courts as well as
considering the mandate of the judgement of the Apex Court in
the case of Kapil Wadhawan vs Central Bureau of Investigation
reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 3038 as well as guideline of this

129
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
Court in the case of Maya Tiwari vs State of U.P. reported in 2024
SCC Online All 6765 regarding grant of bail and without
expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the
opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
8. Let the applicant- Wamik Ali involved in the aforementioned
crime 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.
9. The applicant shall be released on bail on the conditions
mentioned at the tail end of this judgment.
88. Cri. Misc. Bail Application no.19913 of 2026 (Wamik Ali Vs.
State of U.P.)
1. Heard Sri Balbir Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and
Sri Paritosh Malviya, learned AGA for the State.
2. The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to
release the applicants on bail during trial in Case Crime No.977 of
2025, under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 61(2), 3(5) BNS
and 26, 8/21 NDPS, Police Station- Kotwali City, District- Bijnor.
3. As per the prosecution story, during the inspection of a
medicine shop, namely, M/s Shiv Shakti Balaji Medicos,
Bijnor( firm partners- Mr Arun kumar and Mr.Shivanshu Singh), by
the Drug Inspector on 18.11.25, it was found that this firm
purchased 48,345 bottles of codeine cough syrup Lykarex-T from
Cadiz Life Science, Ghaziabad, but M/s Shiv Shakti Balaji
Medicos did not show any document regarding sale of the same.
However, in the confessional statement of Akash Chauhan, who
was one of the partners and also the competent person of M/s
Shiv Shakti Balaji Medicos, admitted to purchase 48,345 bottles of
codeine cough syrup as a drug licence holder. He also admitted
that he sold many codeine-based cough syrups to one Puneet

130
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
without any prescription, and Puneet sold the same to Anant, who
further sold it to Wamik Ali, who sold the same in Jammu &
Kashmir for intoxication
4. It is further submitted that the applicant was not named in the
FIR. His name surfaced in the statements of co-accused Arun and
Puneet as well as in the statements of witnesses Rizawan and
Aas Mohammad (taxi driver). The allegation against the applicant
is that the applicant was involved in purchasing the phensedyl
cough syrup from co-accused Puneet and sold it to Gulfam, who
is an agent of Jammu and Kashmir for intoxicants. However, no
phensedyl bottles or documents were recovered from the
applicant's possession to show that the applicant was involved in
the conspiracy of diverting phensedyl cough syrup for intoxication.
The applicant has explained the criminal history of one case in the
accompanying affidavit. The charge has been filed; therefore,
there is no requirement for custodial interrogation.
5. Per contra learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer and
submitted that name of the applicant was surfaced not only in the
statement of co-accused but also in the statement of witnesses
Aas Mohammad (taxi driver) and Rizwan regrading involvement
and purchasing of codeine based cough syrup from Anant Dev
and then sold it to Gulfam and CDR report of the mobile phone of
the applicant also shows that he was in continuous touch with the
other co-accused Gulfam and Puneet, therefore, the applicant is
not entitled to be released on bail.
6. I have heard the submissions of learned counsel for the rival
parties and perused the record.
7. Considering the aforesaid submissions and taking into account
the allegation against the applicant is he after purchasing the
codeine based cough syrup from Anant Dev further sold to it
Gulfam who was allegedly involved in illegal selling of codeine

131
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
based cough syrup to Jammu and Kashmir but there is no
material against the applicant except the confessional statement
of co-accused as well as statement of taxi driver Aas Mohammad
regarding purchase and sale of codeine based cough syrup
coupled with the fact that charge sheet has been filed and and
keeping in view the nature of offence, evidence, complicity of
accused and taking into account overcrowded jails and heavy
pendency of criminal cases before the trial courts as well as
considering the mandate of the judgement of the Apex Court in
the case of Kapil Wadhawan vs Central Bureau of Investigation
reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 3038 as well as guideline of this
Court in the case of Maya Tiwari vs State of U.P. reported in 2024
SCC Online All 6765 regarding grant of bail and without
expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the
opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
8. Let the applicant- Wamik Ali involved in the aforementioned
crime 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.
9. The applicant shall be released on bail on the conditions
mentioned at the tail end of this judgment.
89. Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 22162 of 2026 (Anant Dev Vs.
State of U.P.)
1. Heard Km. Ashra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri
Paritosh Malviya, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the
record.
2. The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to
release the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 978 of 2025,
under Sections 318(4), 61(2) and 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita
of B.N.S., 2023 and Section 26, 8/21 of Act, Police Station Kotwali
Shahar, District Bijnor, during the pendency of the trial.

132
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
3. As per the prosecution story, during the inspection of a
medicine shop, namely, M/s S.V. Medical Store, Bijnor( firm
partners- Mr Akash Chauhan and Mr.Tushar Kumar), by the Drug
Inspector on 18.11.25, it was found that this firm purchased
48,447 bottles of codeine cough syrup Lykarex-T from Cadiz Life
Science, Ghaziabad, but M/s S.V. Medical Store did not show any
document regarding sale of the same. However, in the
confessional statement of Akash Chauhan, who was one of the
partners and also the competent person of M/s S.V. Medical
Store, admitted to purchase 48,447 bottles of codeine cough
syrup as a drug licence holder. He also admitted that he sold
many codeine-based cough syrups to one Puneet without any
prescription, and Puneet sold the same to Anant, who further sold
it to Wamik Ali, who sold the same in Jammu & Kashmir for
intoxication
4. It is further submitted that the applicant was not named in the
FIR. His name surfaced as an accused in the statements of co-
accused Akash Chauhan and Wamik Ali, as well as three alleged
witnesses, namely, Aas Mohammad, Rizwan and Wajid. Still, no
codeine syrup or document was recovered from the applicant's
possession. Therefore, there is no material against the applicant.
It is further submitted that the applicant has explained the criminal
history of one case. It is further submitted that the charge sheet
has been filed in the present case; therefore, there is no
requirement of custodial interrogation. The applicant is a law-
abiding citizen and has been languishing in jail since 18.11.2025.
If he is granted bail, he will not misuse his liberty and will
cooperate in the trial proceedings.
5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer
for bail and submitted that the name of the applicant surfaced as
an accused in the statement of one Aas Mohammad, who was a
taxi driver, as well as in the statements of co-accused Akash

133
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
Chauhan and Wamik Ali and two witnesses, Rizwan and Wajid. It
is further submitted that the CDR report of the applicant's mobile
phone shows that the applicant was in continuous touch with co-
accused Punit, Wamik, and Gulfam. Therefore, the applicant is a
part of the conspiracy to divert the codeine cough syrup for
intoxication in Jammu & Kashmir. Therefore, the applicant is not
entitled to bail.
6. I have heard the submissions of learned counsel for the rival
parties and perused the record.
7. Considering the fact that allegation against the applicant is that
he used to purchase codeine based cough syrup from co-accused
Puneet and then sold to co-accused Wamik Ali who was involved
in illegal transporting codeine based cough syrup in Jammu and
Kashmir through one Gulfam. However, there is no material
against the present applicant accept confessional statement of co-
accused persons coupled with the fact that charge sheet has
been filed and keeping in view the nature of offence, evidence,
complicity of accused and taking into account overcrowded jails
and heavy pendency of criminal cases before the trial courts as
well as considering the mandate of the judgement of the Apex
Court in the case of Kapil Wadhawan vs Central Bureau of
Investigation reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 3038 as well as
guideline of this Court in the case of Maya Tiwari vs State of U.P.
reported in 2024 SCC Online All 6765 regarding grant of bail and
without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of
the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
8. Let the applicant- Anant Dev involved in the aforementioned
crime 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.

134
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
9. The applicant shall be released on bail on the conditions
mentioned at the tail end of this judgment.
90. Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 18776 of 2026 (Vibhor Rana Vs.
State of U.P.) and Crl. Misc. Bail application No. 18771 of 2026
(Vishal Singh Vs. State of U.P.)
1. Heard Sri Nipun Singh, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri
Raghuvansh Mishra, Naman Agarwal and Vivek Chaturvedi,
learned counsel for applicant and Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned AAG
for the State.
2. Both the aforesaid bail applications arise out of same case
crime, therefore, both the cases are decided by common order.
3. Both the bail applications have been filed with prayer to
released the applicants on bail during trial in Case Crime No.0691
of 2025, under Sections 336(3), 319(2), 318(4) 3(5) B.N.S. & 8,
22, 29, 37, 60 NDPS Act, Police Station-Nandgram, District-
Nagar (Commissionerate- Ghaziabad),
4. As per the prosecution story, on the basis of information
received from informer, Police party raided at Machhli Godam,
Police Station Nandgram, District Ghaziabad. During this raid, one
Saurabh Tyagi was arrested from the spot while he was
supervising the loading and unloading of the consignment of the
two trucks (NL01AH3832, MP16H1328) and two Eicher Canters
bearing no.HR38AC2960 and UP14GT4520, were also standing
there. On inspection, 1,57,350 bottles of codeine based cough
syrup (ESKUF ,New Phensedyl ) was recovered. Apart from this
19 strips of Tapentadol extended tablets, cash of Rs.20 Lakhs, 10
mobiles ,2 laptops, Invoices as well as e-way bills regarding
purchase of cough syrup by M/s A K Pharma and other
documents were also recovered from the Creta Car of Saurabh
Tyagi. Several other persons were also arrested from the spot.
Confession of Saurabh Tyagi and Santosh Bhadana and
statements of other drivers and cleaners were recorded.

135
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
Thereafter on the basis of statement of Saurabh Tyagi, FIR was
lodged against 17 persons.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the
applicants were not named in the FIR. It is further submitted that
neither Saurabh Tyagi, in his statement, nor any other accused
arrested on the spot made any allegation against the applicants.
However, in the second statement of Saurabh Tyagi, the name of
the applicants surfaced with the allegation that applicant (Vibhor
Rana) opened M/s A.V. Pharma proprietorship concerned in the
name of his employee Abhishek Sharma, and same was being
personally handled by Vibhor Rana. Abhishek Sharma was also
named in the FIR and he filed Criminal Misc. Writ Petition
No.26006 of 2025 against this FIR in which interim order was also
granted on 20.11.2025 and his arrest was stayed till conclusion of
investigation. Thereafter, the confessional statement of Abhishek
Sharma was recorded, in which he stated that his firm was being
controlled by Saurabh Tyagi ,who, along with Vibhor Rana was
involved in purchasing and selling of the codeine based cough
syrup and Saurabh Tyagi also shared profit with Vibhor Rana,
therefore, same story was also mentioned in the statement of co-
accused Pappan Yadav.
6. Learned counsel for the applicants also submitted that
investigating officer could not found any suspicious transaction in
the bank account of the applicants except certain transactions
among the family members. He further submitted that there is no
material available against the applicants and they have been
falsely implicated in the present case on the basis of confessional
statement of co-accused and there is no recovery showing the
involvement of applicants indulged in illegal activities of sale and
transport of codeine based syrup. It is lastly submitted that
applicant (Vibhor Rana) has explained criminal history of 3 cases
and charge-sheet has also been filed in the present matter.

136
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
7. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the
applicant Vishal Singh (in Bail application No. 18771 of 2026) was
neither named in the FIR nor came into the picture in the
confessional statement of co-accused or any other witnesses. He
has been falsely implicated because he has issued experience
certificates to different firms, who were involved in dealing and
transporting the cough syrup, as well as the transaction between
the applicant Vishal Singh and Saurabh Tyagi and also co-
accused Abhishek Sharma.
8. Per contra, Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned AAG, vehemently
opposed the prayer and submitted that during investigation, it was
found that the applicant- Vibhor Rana was the proprietor of M/s
G.R. Trading, Saharanpur. However, it had stopped to sale and
purchase of phensedyl cough syrup in year 2022, but new firm,
namely Maruti Medicos, was formed by the applicant- Vibhor
Rana in the name of one Sachin though earlier the same was
known as Sachin Medicos, Roorkee. It was also found that
several money transactions were made between G.R. Trading as
well as Maruti Medicos. It is further submitted that C.A., who filed
the income tax return on behalf of the applicants (Vibhor Rana as
well as Vishal Singh) stated in his statement recorded under
Section 180 BNSS that the applicant Vibhor Rana requested him
for a bank guarantee of rupees one crore for Maruti Medicos to
get the super dealership of Abbott Laboratories thereafter, cash of
rupees one crore was arranged by him through a person on
interest. It is further submitted that the aforesaid Maruti Medicos,
after purchasing codeine cough syrup from Abbott Laboratories,
sold it to A.V. Pharma, which was handled by the applicant
through his employee Abhishek Sharma. The aforesaid cough
syrup sold by Maruti Medicos to A.V. Pharma was recovered at
Lucknow as well as Tripura during illegal transportation for the
purpose of intoxication. It is further submitted that during
investigation, this fact was also unearthed that the email ID of M/S

137
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
A.V. Pharma was logged in from the mobile of the applicant
Vibhor Rana. Therefore, the applicant- Vibhor Rana was indirectly
running M/S A.V. Pharma. It is also submitted that Abhishek
Sharma, who was the proprietor of M/S A.V. Pharma on papers,
deposited Rs.57,37,268/- lakh in the account of the applicant
Vibhor Rana between 2019 to 2025 and Vibhor Rana also
transferred Rs.31,88,946/- in the account of Abhishek Sharma
during the same period. Apart from this Abhishek Sharma also
deposited Rs.11,93,000 between 15.02.2023 to 15.01.2025 in the
account of Vibhor Rana’s sister-in-law (wife of applicant Vishal
Singh). It was further submitted that for opening Sachin Medico at
Saharanpur as well as several other firms, experience certificate
was given by co-accused Vishal Singh. Co-accused Saurabh
Tayagi had also deposited money in the account of applicant
Vishal Singh. It is also submitted that there was 95 inter bank
transactions between Vishal Singh and Vibhor Rana amounting to
Rs. 1,15,17,252/-. Investigation also revealed that WhatsApp
chats of CA Rakesh Kanaujiya with the applicants show that the
M/S Sachin Medicos, M/s Maruti Medico and M/s A.V. Pharma
were being controlled by them. It is also submitted by learned
AAG that investigation further revealed that sales of codeine
based syrup by 66 shell firms situated in Uttrakhand to M/S A.V.
Pharmaceutical were carried out through a single IP address
indicating the use of common internate connection/router and very
same IP address was also used by M/s Maruti Medico, Roorkee
while recording sales made by it to the aforesaid shell firms.
9. It is also submitted that the firm Sachin Medicos, Saharanpur
was having shop on rent which was owned by the mother of
applicant Vishal Singh. It is also submitted that initially G.R.
Trading, Saharanpur was dealing in 108 firms for codeine syrup
and after stopping business by G.R. Trading, Maruti Medicos
started supplying codeine syrup to those 108 firms and some of
the firms sold the codeine syrup to Sachin Medicos at

138
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
Saharanpur, which was indirectly being controlled by the
applicants Vibhor Rana and Vishal Singh though it is admitted that
name of the co-accused Vishal Singh was not surfaced in the
confessional statement of co-accused or any witnesses except
the statement of C.A., Rajesh Kanaujiya. It is also submitted that
at the time of arresting of co-accused Saurabh Tayagi and
Subham Bhadana on 04.11.2025, one mobile phone belongs to
Abhishek Sharma, was also recovered which shows that A.V.
Pharma is being controlled by Saurabh Tyagi.
10. In support of his contention relied upon the judgement in the
case of Baburao Bajirao Patil vs State of Maharashtra in Criminal
Appeal No. 201 of 1996 as well as in the case of Devender Pal
Singh vs State of N.C.T. of State of Delhi in Criminal Appeal No.
993 of 2001, wherein Hon’ble Apex Court observed that in
confessional statement if proved is relevant in conspiracy under
Section 30 of Evidence Act.
11. In reply to the submission of learned AAG, learned counsel for
the applicant submitted that the documents relied upon by the
State for further investigation are not admissible because no
permission was taken from the court concerned for further
investigation. It is submitted that the section invoked against the
applicant is regarding transactions dealing with psychotropic
substance (Section 22 of NDPS). However, the alleged recovery
of psychotropic substance Tapentadol 19 strips is having below
commercial quantity; even otherwise, recovered strips of
Tapentadol tablet from co-accused Saurabh Tiyagi are not
mentioned as psychotropic substance in any of the schedules
under the NDPS Act; therefore, Section 29 of NDPS Act regarding
the same cannot be invoked.
12. I have considered the submission of counsel for rival parties
and perused the record. The applicants were not named in the
FIR and subsequently 1,57,350 bottles of codeine based cough

139
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
syrup recovered from two trucks and two Eicher canters at
Macchali Nagar, District Ghaziabad. During the above police raid
mobile phone of Abhishek Sharma, proprietor of A.V. Pharma was
recovered from co-accused Saurabh Tiyagi, who was arrested on
spot and supervising the loading of codeine based cough in the
trucks. After the confession of Abhishek Sharma, Proprietor of A.V.
Pharma, mobile phone of the applicant was also checked and
found that email -ID of AV Pharma was logged in through the
mobile phone of Vibhor Rana. Thereafter C.A. of Vibhor Rana
also stated regarding active involvement of the applicant in
forming the Maruti Medicos after closing Sachin Medicos,
Roorkee and arranging the dealership of phensedyl codeine syrup
of Abbott laboratories for it. It was also found that earlier G.R.
Enterprise of Vibhor Rana was selling codeine based cough syrup
to 108 firms till 2022 and thereafter Maruti Pharma started selling
the codeine based syrup to those firms. It was also found that
same I.P. address was used by the 66 firms of Uttrakhand to sale
the codeine based cough syrup to A.V. Pharma and same I.P.
address was also used by Maruti Medicos showing that the entire
transaction was conducted in one office. It was also found that
there is material showing that after purchasing the codeine based
syrup from Abbott Laboratories, Maruti Medico also sold it to A.V.
Pharma and large part of the same batch number was recovered
at Lucknow and Tripura during illegal transportation of codeine
based syrup. This fact prmia facie shows active involvement of
the applicant Vibhor Rana in running A.V. Pharma, Maruti medicos
which were involved in transporting huge codeine based syrup
purchased from Abott laboratories for the purpose other than
medical use, which further substantiated by inter-bank transfer
between the applicant Vibhor Rana and other co-accused.
Therefore, this Court is not inclined to release the applicant
(Vibhor Rana) on bail. Therefore, bail application of Vibhor Rana
is rejected.

140
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
13. However, considering the fact that except issuance of
experience certificate and some transaction by the proprietor A.V.
Pharma, there is no other material against applicant Vishal Singh
regarding illegal trafficking of codeine based cough syrup and also
considering the fact that Vishal Singh was working as an officer in
Abbott Laboratories having no criminal history and keeping in
view the nature of offence, evidence, complicity of accused and
taking into account overcrowded jails and heavy pendency of
criminal cases before the trial courts as well as considering the
mandate of the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Kapil
Wadhawan vs Central Bureau of Investigation reported in 2025
SCC Online SC 3038 as well as guideline of this Court in the case
of Maya Tiwari vs State of U.P. reported in 2024 SCC Online All
6765 regarding grant of bail and without expressing any opinion
on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is
entitled to be enlarged on bail.
14. Let the applicant- Vishal Singh involved in the aforementioned
crime 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.
15. The applicant shall be released on bail on the conditions
mentioned at the tail end of this judgment.
91. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.21530 of 2026 (Mukesh
Pandey Vs. State of U.P.) along with Criminal Misc. Bail
Application No.25269 of 2026 (Yogesh Tiwari Vs. State of U.P.) ,
1. Heard Sri Dinesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the
applicant in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.21530 of 2026, Sri
I.K. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Saurabh
Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the applicant in Criminal Misc.
Bail Application No.25269 of 2026 and Sri Chandan Agrawal,
learned AGA-I as well as Sri Sanjiv Kumar Sagar, learned AGA for
the State.

141
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
2. Instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to release
the applicant on bail during trial in Case Crime No.0113 of 2026,
under Section 8/22/23/29 NDPS Act, Police Station Purandarpur,
Disrtrict Maharajganj.
3. As per the prosecution story, while the applicants were going
towards Nepal, they were stopped by the police and checked the
carton kept on the motorcycle. On checking the carton,123
bottles(100ml each) of codeine cough syrup (CODISUN) and 960
tables of Tramadol were recovered. The aforesaid recovery was
made in the presence of a Gazetted Officer and the applicant
could not produce any document regarding the purchase, use or
transportation of the aforesaid medicines.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants further submitted that
codeine syrup itself is not a narcotic drug; therefore, the
provisions of the NDPS Act will not be attracted against the
applicants, as the recovered codeine syrup itself can not be
deemed to be above 1 kg.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants further submitted that the
aforesaid recovered codeine cough syrup, as well as tablets
containing the psychotropic substance tramadol, can be deemed
to have been recovered from the joint possession of the
applicants.
6.It is further submitted that the applicant (Yogesh Sharma) in Bail
Application No.25269 of 2026 is having a drug licence under the
Drugs and Cosmetics Act as a retailer of medicines; therefore, the
recovered medicines cannot be treated as having been
transported for a non-medical purpose. Therefore, the recovered
medicines would not come within the category of manufactured
drugs. It is further submitted that there is a violation of Sections 50
and 52-A of the NDPS Act. It is further submitted that the applicant
Mukesh Pandey has no criminal history and applicant Yogesh
Sharma has explained the criminal history of one case.

142
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
7. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the aforesaid
recovery was not witnessed by independent witnesses and even
the recovery was video-graphed through the mobile phone of the
Sub-Inspector and not through the e-Sakshya App, which is a
mandatory as per the BNS Rules 2024.
8. Per contra, learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer for
bail and submitted that both the applicants were found to be in
possession of 123 bottles of codeine-based syrup and this syrup
been approved as a medicine for cough; therefore, the same is to
be treated as spurious drugs. Even otherwise, the recovered
codeine syrup was not being transported for medical purposes
and no document was shown regarding the transportation of the
recovered medicines for medical purposes. Merely because
applicant (Yogesh Tiwari) of Bail Application No.25269 of 2026 is
having a licence as a drug retailer under the Drugs and Cosmetics
Act in Gorakhpur, the same would not authorise him to transport
and possess the said codeine-based syrup near the Nepal border.
It is also submitted that the applicant(Yogesh Tiwari) in Bail
Application No.25269 of 2026 has explained the criminal history of
one case, though he has a criminal history of four cases, which
has not been explained by him.
9. Learned AGA further submitted that proper procedure regarding
preparing the inventory, seizure, storage, sampling and disposal
as per the NDPS Rules, 2022 was prepared and the same was
subsequently produced before the Magistrate for certification.
10. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.
11. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case,
submissions of learned counsel for the parties as well as
considering the fact that applicant Yogesh Tiwari (applicant in Bail
Application No. 25269 of 2026) was having a drug licence as a
retailer and the applicant Mukesh Pandey was driving the

143
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
motorcycle, whereupon applicant Yogesh Tiwari was the pillion
rider along with cartons containing medicines and codeine-based
cough syrup, which can not be presumed that the applicants were
transporting the same for the purpose of intoxication, without any
other evidence and keeping in view the nature of offence,
evidence, complicity of the accused and taking into account the
fact that the charge-sheet has already been filed and considering
the overcrowded jails and heavy pendency of criminal cases
before the trial courts as well as considering the mandate of the
judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Kapil Wadhawan vs
Central Bureau of Investigation reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC
3038 as well as guideline of this Court in the case of Maya Tiwari
Vs. State of U.P., 2024 SCC Online All 6765 regarding grant of
bail and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case,
I am of the opinion that the applicants are entitled to be enlarged
on bail. Accordingly, the present applications are allowed.
12. Let the applicants- Mukesh Pandey and Yogesh Tiwari,
involved in the aforementioned crime be released on bail, on their
furnishing personal bonds and two sureties each in the like
amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
13. The applicants shall be released on bail on the conditions
mentioned at the tail end of this judgment.
92. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.7622 of 2026 (Shivanshu
Singh Vs. State of U.P.),
1. Heard Sri Gaurav Kakkar, learned Senior Counsel assisted by
Sri Raghvendra Prakash, learned counsel for the applicant and
learned AGA for the State.
2. Instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to released
the applicant on bail during trial in Case Crime No.0977 of 2025,
under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 61(2) BNS and
Section 8/21 NDPS Act, Police Station Kotwali City, District Bijnor.

144
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
3. As per the prosecution story the Drug Department obtained
information that M/s Shiv Shakti Balaji Medicos had purchased
10950 bottles of codeine syrup Lykarex-T syrup(between 30.4.25
to 28.6.25). On inspection shop of the firm was found to be closed
at the address mentioned in the license. Thereafter, notice was
issued to the partners of the aforesaid firm and in reply, it was
mentioned though partnership firm was created through
partnership deed but the same was re-constituted through Deed
dated 15.07.2022 by which the applicant was retired and one
Rishabh was admitted as new partner. Partner and Competent
person the firm, Arun Kumar could not produce any document/bill
regarding sale or stock of aforesaid 10,950 bottles of Lykarex-T.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that as per the
drug license of the firm in question, co-accused Arun Kumar has
been shown as competent person as well as responsible for day
to day affairs of the firm. Therefore, even if any liability arises
regarding sale and purchase of any medicine, the same would be
of Arun Kumar in view of Section 38 of the NDPS Act. It is further
submitted that it is clear from the GST records as well as
statement of GST official that in pursuance of the new partnership
deed dated 15.07.2022, one Rishabh was admitted as a partner
along with co-accused Arun Kumar. The entire delivery of the
medicines was also taken by the new partner Rishabh Kumar and
payment thereof was also made by him to the seller firm.
5. It is further submitted that the invoices which are subject matter
of this case regarding purchase of codeine cough syrup, were
issued on 03.05.2025, 17.05.2025 and 28.06.2025. On the said
dates, applicant was not a partner in the firm. Therefore, no
liability can be fastened upon the applicant. It is further submitted
that though no case is made out against the applicant either under
the BNS or under the NDPS Act and he has been falsely
implicated in the present case and charge-sheet has also been
filed. It is further submitted that applicant is not having any

145
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
previous criminal history, therefore, he is entitled to be released
on bail.
6. Per contra, learned AGA, Sri Paritosh Malaviya, vehemently
opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that applicant or his
partner never gave any intimation to the Drug Department
regarding retirement of the applicant as partner from the firm and
even no intimation was given for cancellation of license for
changing the same.
7. Learned AGA has also submitted that as per the terms and
conditions of license issued to the applicant in case any change in
the constitution of firm, the licensee should have informed the
licensing authority and current license shall be valid only for three
months until fresh license is issued in the name of firm which
changed the constitution. It is also submitted that e-way bill and
invoice also show that they contain the names of Rishabh and his
wife Divya, however, license number of applicant's firm was
mentioned therein. It is further submitted that several bottles of
codeine-based syrup, which were allegedly purchased by the
applicant’s firm, were recovered in Jammu and Kashmir while
being transported for the purpose of intoxication.
8. Learned AGA further submitted that though, applicant has
annexed the re-constituted partnership deed showing the
retirement of applicant from the firm but the change in constitution
of the firm has not been intimated to Registrar Chit and Fund
Society.
9. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.
10. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case,
submissions of learned counsel for the parties, it is not in dispute
that in the drug licence, co-accused Arun Kumar was shown as
the competent person as well as person responsible for day-to-

146
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
day affairs of the pharma firm. On the dates of purchase of the
cough syrup, i.e. 03.04.2025, 17.05.2025 and 28.06.2025, the
applicant was not a partner of the firm ,as he had already
resigned from the partnership and one Rishabh Kumar was
admitted as a partner vide partnership deed dated 15.07.2022,
which is duly substantiated by the records of the GST
Department, as well as considering Section 38 of the NDPS Act
and keeping in view the nature of offence, evidence and
complicity of the accused and taking into account the fact that the
applicant has no criminal history and the charge-sheet has
already been filed, and considering the overcrowded jails and
heavy pendency of criminal cases before the trial courts, as well
as considering the mandate of the judgment of the Apex Court in
the case of Kapil Wadhawan vs Central Bureau of Investigation
reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 3038 as well as the guidelines
of this Court in the case of Maya Tiwari Vs. State of U.P., 2024
SCC Online All 6765 regarding grant of bail and without
expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the
opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
Accordingly, the present application is allowed.
11. Let the applicant- Shivanshu Singh, involved in the
aforementioned crime 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.
12. The applicant shall be released on bail on the conditions
mentioned at the tail end of this judgment.
93. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.12410 of 2026
(Zaheeruddin Vs. State of U.P.),
1. Heard Sri Prince Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the
applicant and Sri Paritosh Malviya, learned AGA for the State.
2. Instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to released
the applicant on bail during trial in Case Crime No.1085 of 2025,

147
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
under Sections 8/21/29 NDPS Act, Police Station Kotwali
Khalilabad, District Sant Kabir Nagar.
3. As per the prosecution story, Drug Inspector inspected the
medical shop of Sankalp Medical Store and during investigation, it
was found that 4520 bottles of Codiva cough syrup (having
permitted quantity of codeine) and capsule of Puroxowin Spas
were recovered. Subsequently, it was found that Sankalp Medical
Store had purchased 4220 bottles of Codiva cough syrup from
Biohub Life Sciences in Lucknow.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that applicant
was not named in the FIR and name of the applicant surfaced
during investigation on the basis of statement of proprietor of
Sankalp Medical Store. The allegation is that 2185 bottles of
Codiva cough syrup was sold to her by applicant's medical store.
In support of her claim, she had also given invoices and counter
bills showing the delivery of aforesaid bottles of syrup. It is further
submitted that applicant has not purchased any cough syrup from
the Sankalp Medical Store and forged invoices were prepared by
the proprietor of Sankalp Medical Store just to show the sale
without actually selling the same and counter receipt regarding
the delivery does not show any receiving on the part of the
applicant of the aforesaid cough syrup. Therefore, applicant has
been falsely implicated in the present case.
5. It is further submitted that applicant has purchased only 150
bottles of Codiva cough syrup from the Sankalp Medical Stores
and invoices thereof have been produced before the Drug
Inspector and he, being retailer, sold 150 bottles of Codiva cough
syrup to different purchasers but could not maintain the record as
required by the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945. Therefore, it
could be a case of violation of Drugs and Cosmetics Act and the
provision of NDPS Act would not be attracted and the Codiva
cough syrup is also not manufactured drug, in view of the

148
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
notification dated 14.11.1985 of the Government of India. It is
further submitted that applicant has no criminal history.
6. Per contra, learned AGA has submitted that invoices produced
by the Sankalp Medical Store shows that the applicant has
purchased 2185 bottles of Codiva cough syrup but the same were
not found at the medical store of the applicant and even no
document was found regarding the sale of the same. Even the
admitted purchase of Codiva cough syrup of 160 bottles had been
sold by the applicant without medical prescription. Therefore,
admitted sale of 160 bottles of Codeine cough syrup will be
deemed for the purpose of intoxication and provision of NDPS Act
would be attracted.
7. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.
8. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case,
submissions of learned counsel for the parties and taking into
account the fact that the applicant was not named in the FIR; he is
a medicine retailer having a drug licence and had purchased 150
bottles of codeine-based cough syrup, but the proprietor of
Sankalp Medical Store had prepared invoices for 2,185 bottles of
Codiva cough syrup without showing any actual delivery to the
applicant and the applicant sold 150 bottles to different
purchasers without maintaining proper record as required under
the licence of the applicant, it cannot be presumed that the
applicant sold the Codiva cough syrup for the purpose of
intoxication. At the most, considering the very small number of
bottles sold by the applicant over a long span of time, he may
have committed an offence under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act
and not under the NDPS Act and keeping in view the nature of
offence, evidence and complicity of the accused and taking into
account the fact that the applicant has no criminal history and the
charge-sheet has already been filed, and considering the

149
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
overcrowded jails and heavy pendency of criminal cases before
the trial courts, as well as considering the mandate of the
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kapil Wadhawan vs
Central Bureau of Investigation reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC
3038 as well as the guidelines of this Court in the case of Maya
Tiwari Vs. State of U.P., 2024 SCC Online All 6765 regarding
grant of bail and without expressing any opinion on the merits of
the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be
enlarged on bail. Accordingly, the present application is allowed.
9. Let the applicant- Zaheeruddin, involved in the aforementioned
crime 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.
10. The applicant shall be released on bail on the conditions
mentioned at the tail end of this judgment.
94. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.10322 of 2026 (Parmatma
Prasad Chaudhary Vs. State of U.P.),
1. Heard Sri Musheer Khan, learned counsel for the applicant and
Sri Paritosh Malviya, learned AGA for the State.
2. Instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to released
the applicant on bail during trial in Case Crime No.1085 of 2025,
under Sections 8/21/29 NDPS Act, Police Station Kotwali
Khalilabad, District Sant Kabir Nagar.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is
license holder of the medical store. He had purchased 800 bottles
of Codiva cough syrup and during the course of business he sold
aforesaid bottles to different individual purchasers without
maintaining the proper record because of heavy rush of the
customers. Therefore, at the most, it is a case of violation of Drug
and Cosmetics Act which requires maintenance of the records of
sale and stock. It is further submitted that there is no material
against the applicant to show that he had sold and transported the

150
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
aforesaid quantity for any purposes other than medicinal use,
therefore, applicant has not committed any offence.
4. Learned AGA submitted that though the applicant had
purchased 800 bottles of Codiva cough syrup but did not maintain
any record regarding sale including prescription of doctor and the
applicant had sold 800 bottles without prescription to several
customers. Therefore, he would be liable under the NDPS Act.
5. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.
6. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case,
submissions of learned counsel for the parties and taking into
account the fact that the applicant is running a medical store on
the basis of a licence issued under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act
and had sold 800 bottles of Codiva cough syrup during the course
of business to different individual purchasers without maintaining
proper record due to heavy rush of customers, and the State also
did not produce any evidence that he sold the codeine-based
cough syrup for the purpose of intoxication, and keeping in view
the nature of offence, evidence and complicity of the accused and
taking into account the fact that the charge-sheet has already
been filed, and considering the overcrowded jails and heavy
pendency of criminal cases before the trial courts, as well as
considering the mandate of the judgment of the Apex Court in the
case of Kapil Wadhawan vs Central Bureau of Investigation
reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 3038 as well as the guidelines
of this Court in the case of Maya Tiwari Vs. State of U.P., 2024
SCC Online All 6765 regarding grant of bail and without
expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the
opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
Accordingly, the present application is allowed.
7. Let the applicant- Parmatma Prasad Chaudhary, involved in the
aforementioned crime be released on bail, on his furnishing a

151
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, to the
satisfaction of the court concerned.
8. The applicant shall be released on bail on the conditions
mentioned at the tail end of this judgment.
95. Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 14203 of 2026 (Mohd Asad Vs.
State of U.P.)
1. Heard Sri Imran Mabood Khan, learned Senior Advocate
assisted by Ms. Shweta Pandey, learned counsel for the
applicant, Sri P.K. Malviya , learned A.G.A. for the State and
perused the record.
2. The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to
release the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 1088 of 2025,
under Sections 206(A), 271, 276, 318(4) of B.N.S & Section
8/21/29 N.D.P.S Act from Police Station Kotwali Khalilabad,
District Sant Kabir Nagar, during the pendency of the trial.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that, as per the
prosecution story, the Drug Inspector inspected the medical shop
of the applicant, which was registered as M/s Life Medical Store,
and during that inspection, the Drug Inspector found that the
applicant had purchased 800 bottles of Codiva cough syrup
during the last two years and sold 920 bottles. Similarly, it was
also found that the records show that the applicant had purchased
80 capsules of Puroxowin Spas and sold 616 capsules as per the
record. Subsequently, during her first statement, Drug Inspector
Preeti Singh changed her version and stated that the sale of
Codiva cough syrup was incorrectly mentioned in the F.I.R. as 920
bottles, whereas it was 13 bottles. Thereafter, she again changed
the figure in her second statement and stated that actually the
total sale of the applicant, as per the record, was 45 bottles, which
was incorrectly mentioned as 920 bottles in the F.I.R. Thereafter,
the F.I.R. was lodged by the drug inspector without giving an
proper opportunity to the applicant to produce documents

152
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
regarding the sale of Codiva cough syrup and Puroxowin Spas
capsules. However, during investigation, the police found that,
with regard to 800 bottles of Codiva cough syrup purchased by
the applicant during the last two years, i.e. 2024 and 2025, the
applicant had sold 238 bottles, but record regarding the sale of
the remaining 558 bottles and 488 Puroxowin Spas capsules was
not produced by him. Therefore, the applicant is alleged to have
sold 558 bottles of Codiva cough syrup as well as 488 Puroxowin
Spas capsules without medical prescriptions.
4. It is further submitted that the version of the Drug Inspector in
the F.I.R. kept changing in her first statement and again in her
second statement; therefore, the prosecution story itself becomes
doubtful. It is further submitted that sometimes during rush hours,
it may not be possible to maintain the record of medical
prescriptions at the time of selling cough syrup to individual
patients, which may be at the best a case of violation of the
conditions of the drug licence. Therefore, in such a case,
prosecution can be initiated under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act,
whereas the prosecution under the NDPS Act is absolutely
malicious. It is also submitted that Codiva cough syrup itself is not
a manufactured drug in view of Entry 35 of the Government
Notification dated 14.11.1985. Therefore, the applicant has been
falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that
the applicant has no criminal history. It is further submitted that
the charge sheet has been filed in the present case; therefore,
there is no requirement of custodial interrogation. The applicant is
a law-abiding citizen and is languishing in jail since 11.01.2026. In
case he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and
will cooperate in the trial proceedings.
5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer
for bail and submitted that the applicant could not show the
invoices regarding 558 bottles of Codiva cough syrup, having a
permitted quantity of codeine, as well as 488 Puroxowin Spas

153
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
capsules during the last two years, which is in clear violation of
the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. There is a possibility that the
Codiva cough syrup as well as Puroxowin Spas capsules sold by
the applicant was used for the purpose of intoxication; therefore,
the provisions of the NDPS Act have been rightly invoked against
the applicant. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to be
released on bail.
6. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.
7. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case,
submissions of learned counsel for the parties and taking into
account the fact that the applicant is having a licence for running a
medical shop in the name of M/s Life Medical Store and during
the investigation it is found that the applicant had purchased 800
bottles of Codiva cough syrup within the last two years but he had
a record of selling only 238 bottles and could not produce the
record of the remaining bottles nor could show the stock of the
remaining Codiva cough syrup, therefore, it could be a case of
violation of the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. There
is no material showing that the applicant had sold 558 bottles of
Codiva cough syrup within a span of two years for the purpose of
intoxication, coupled with the fact that the applicant has no
criminal history and the charge-sheet has already been filed, and
keeping in view the nature of offence, evidence and complicity of
the accused and considering the overcrowded jails and heavy
pendency of criminal cases before the trial courts, as well as
considering the mandate of the judgment of the Apex Court in the
case of Kapil Wadhawan vs Central Bureau of Investigation
reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 3038 as well as the guidelines
of this Court in the case of Maya Tiwari Vs. State of U.P., 2024
SCC Online All 6765 regarding grant of bail and without
expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the

154
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
Accordingly, the present application is allowed.
8. Let the applicant- Mohd Asad, involved in the aforementioned
crime 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.
9. This is a classic case where the alleged offence completely
appears to be covered within the domain of the Drugs and
Cosmetics Act, even then the F.I.R. has been lodged under the
NDPS Act. Therefore, Commissioner of Food Safety and Drug
Administration (FSDA), Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow is directed to
issue necessary directions to all the Drug Inspectors that
whenever they find any fault in a medical shop with regard to the
violation of the conditions of licence, then, before proceeding to
register an F.I.R. under the NDPS Act, they should obtain legal
advice from the concerned D.G.C. Or JD(prosecution).
10. Personal appearance of Preeti Singh, Drug Inspector is
exempted until further orders of this Court.
11. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the
Commissioner of Food Safety, Drug Administration (FSDA), Uttar
Pradesh, Lucknow through Registrar (Compliance).
12. The applicant shall be released on bail on the conditions
mentioned at the tail end of this judgment.
96. Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.800 of 2026 (Dharmendra
Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P.)
1. Heard Sri Santosh Singh, learned counsel for the applicant,
Sri P.K. Malviya , learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the
record.
2. The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to
release the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 691 of 2025,
under Section 336(3), 319(2), 318(4), 3(5) of B.N.S. and Section

155
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
8/22/29/37/60 of N.D.P.S. Act 1985, Police Station Nandgram,
District Ghaziabad, during the pendency of the trial.
3. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the
applicant is a driver of truck bearing No. HR 38 AC 2960. As per
the prosecution story, co-accused Saurav Tyagi was supervising
the loading of four trucks with Eskuf codeine cough syrup and one
of the trucks belonged to the applicant, and on inspection, 41,100
bottles of codeine cough syrup (Eskuf) were found in 137
cardboard boxes packed in bags. It is further submitted that the
applicant is a driver of the truck and he was not aware about the
actual contains being transported. The truck was standing at the
place of incident on the instructions of the owner of the truck and
the same was being loaded by the labourers on the instructions of
co-accused Saurav Tyagi . The applicant has no concern with the
illegal trade of codeine cough syrup. The e-way bill regarding
transportation of the aforesaid cough syrup is yet to be received
by the applicant and the same must be with the owner of the truck
because transportation was yet to be started. Therefore, the
applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is
further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history. It is
further submitted that the charge sheet has been filed in the
present case; therefore, there is no requirement of custodial
interrogation. The applicant is a law-abiding citizen and is
languishing in jail since 04.11.2025. In case he is granted bail, he
will not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate in the trial
proceedings.
4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer
for bail and submitted that the applicant was the driver of the truck
bearing registration No. HR 38 AC 2960, but he was arrested on
the spot and the aforesaid truck was carrying 41,100 bottles of
Eskuf (codeine-based cough syrup), that can be used only for
medical purposes, and any other use would attract the provisions
of the NDPS Act, as Eskuf cough syrup contains codeine, which is

156
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
a narcotic substance. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to be
released on bail.
5. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.
6. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case,
submissions of learned counsel for the parties, it is not in dispute
that the applicant is a driver of truck HR 38 AC 2960, wherein
Saurabh Tyagi was loading cardboard boxes packed in bags
containing 41,100 bottles of codeine cough syrup and, from the
perusal of the video prepared by the Investigating Officer during
the recovery under Section 105 of the BNSS, it is clear that all the
bags containing cartons were duly packed and the truck driver
could not have guessed the material contained therein, coupled
with the fact that the applicant has no criminal history and the
charge-sheet has already been filed, and keeping in view the
nature of offence, evidence and complicity of the accused and
considering the overcrowded jails and heavy pendency of criminal
cases before the trial courts, as well as considering the mandate
of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kapil Wadhawan
vs Central Bureau of Investigation reported in 2025 SCC OnLine
SC 3038 as well as the guidelines of this Court in the case of
Maya Tiwari Vs. State of U.P., 2024 SCC Online All 6765
regarding grant of bail and without expressing any opinion on the
merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled
to be enlarged on bail. Accordingly, the present application is
allowed.
7. Let the applicant- Dharmendra Kumar Singh, involved in the
aforementioned crime 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.

157
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
8. The applicant shall be released on bail on the conditions
mentioned at the tail end of this judgment.
97. Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 11388 of 2026 (Kamal Maurya
Vs. State of U.P.).
1. Heard Sri Anurag Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri
P.K. Malviya, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to
release the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 691 of 2025,
under Sections 336(3), 319(2), 318(4), 3(5) Β.N.S. and Section
8/22/29 N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station Nandgram, District
Ghaziabad, during the pendency of the trial.
3. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the name
of the applicant was mentioned in the F.I.R. as one of the accused
merely on the basis of the confessional statement of one co-
accused, Sushil Yadav, who was arrested on the spot being the
driver of the truck bearing registration No. MP 16 H 1328 while he
was loading cough syrup. It is further submitted that the only
allegation against the applicant is that he sent co-accused Sushil
Yadav to a place near Nandgram to load the cough syrup in his
truck and transport the same to Guwahati by secretly concealing
the codeine syrup beneath limestone, and it was further
mentioned in the statement of co-accused Sushil Yadav that the
applicant was in contact with Shubham Jaiswal, Asif and
Waseem. It is further submitted that except the aforesaid
confessional statement of co-accused Sushil Yadav, there is no
material against the applicant regarding his involvement in the
illegal trade of codeine-based cough syrup. It is further submitted
that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case.
It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history
and the charge sheet has been filed in the present case;
therefore, there is no requirement of custodial interrogation. The
applicant is a law-abiding citizen and he is languishing in jail since

158
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
21.01.2026. In case he is granted bail, he will not misuse the
liberty of bail and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.
4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer
for bail and submitted that the name of the applicant surfaced in
the statement of the co-accused as the person involved in the
transportation of the codeine-based cough syrup. The applicant
had sent co-accused Sushil Yadav to load the codeine-based
cough syrup from Ghaziabad and transport the same to Guwahati,
and the applicant was also in contact with co-accused Shubham
Jaiswal, Asif and Waseem. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled
to be released on bail.
5. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.
6. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case,
submissions of learned counsel for the parties and considering
the fact that the applicant was not present on the spot and his
name surfaced as an accused in the statement of co-accused
Sushil Yadav, the only allegation against the applicant is that he
sent co-accused Sushil Yadav to load cough syrup in his truck
from Ghaziabad and transport the same to Guwahati, though
there is no other material against the applicant regarding his
involvement in illegal trafficking/trading of codeine-based cough
syrup, coupled with the fact that the applicant has no criminal
history and the charge-sheet has already been filed, and keeping
in view the nature of offence, evidence and complicity of the
accused and considering the overcrowded jails and heavy
pendency of criminal cases before the trial courts, as well as
considering the mandate of the judgment of the Apex Court in the
case of Kapil Wadhawan vs Central Bureau of Investigation
reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 3038 as well as the guidelines
of this Court in the case of Maya Tiwari Vs. State of U.P., 2024
SCC Online All 6765 regarding grant of bail and without

159
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the
opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
Accordingly, the present application is allowed.
7. Let the applicant- Kamal Maurya, involved in the
aforementioned crime 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.
8. The applicant shall be released on bail on the conditions
mentioned at the tail end of this judgment.
98. Crl Misc. Bail Application No. 19447 of 2026 (Sushil Yadav Vs.
State of U.P.)
1. Heard Sri Manu Ram Chaudhary along with Pradeep Kumar
Soni, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri P.K. Malviya, learned
A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to
release the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 691 of 2025,
under Sections 336(3), 319(2), 318(4), 3(5) B.N.S. and Sections
8, 22, 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985, Police Station Nandgram,
District Ghaziabad, during the pendency of the trial.
3. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that, as per
the prosecution story, the applicant is the driver of the truck
bearing registration No. MP 16 H 1328, which was found while
loading the codeine-based cough syrup (Eskuf) after unloading
limestone near Machchli Godam, Nandgram, under the
supervision of co-accused Saurav Tyagi. It is further submitted
that the applicant is merely a truck driver and he was sent by one
Kamal Maurya to take delivery of certain consignments from
Machchli Godam, Ghaziabad, after unloading the lime stone
loaded in the applicant’s truck from Indore, at the instructions of
the owner of the truck, Sonu, without knowing the actual contents
thereof. Therefore, the applicant has not committed any offence. It

160
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history. It is
further submitted that the charge sheet has been filed in the
present case; therefore, there is no requirement of custodial
interrogation. The applicant is a law-abiding citizen and he is
languishing in jail since 04.11.2025. In case he is granted bail, he
will not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate in the trial
proceedings.
4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer
for bail and submitted that at the time of raiding the truck, it was
found,it was found to be carrying 15,300 bottles of Eskuf syrup
and the e-way bill shows that the applicant was required to
transport the lime stone from Katni to Agartala, but actually he
was loading the cough syrup from Machchli Godam, Nandgram,
without any transportation document. Therefore, the applicant is
not entitled to be released on bail, as the applicant is a part of this
illegal trade of codeine-based cough syrup for the purpose of
intoxication.
5. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.
6. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case,
submissions of learned counsel for the parties, it is not in dispute
that the applicant is a driver of truck MP 16 H 1328, wherein
Saurabh Tyagi was loading cardboard boxes packed in bags
containing 15,300 bottles of codeine cough syrup and, from the
perusal of the video prepared by the Investigating Officer during
the recovery under Section 105 of the BNSS, it is clear that all the
bags containing cartons were duly packed and the truck driver
could not have guessed the material contained therein, coupled
with the fact that the applicant has no criminal history and the
charge-sheet has already been filed, and keeping in view the
nature of offence, evidence and complicity of the accused and
considering the overcrowded jails and heavy pendency of criminal

161
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
cases before the trial courts, as well as considering the mandate
of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kapil Wadhawan
vs Central Bureau of Investigation reported in 2025 SCC OnLine
SC 3038 as well as the guidelines of this Court in the case of
Maya Tiwari Vs. State of U.P., 2024 SCC Online All 6765
regarding grant of bail and without expressing any opinion on the
merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled
to be enlarged on bail. Accordingly, the present application is
allowed.
7. Let the applicant- Sushil Yadav, involved in the aforementioned
crime 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.
8. The applicant shall be released on bail on the conditions
mentioned at the tail end of this judgment.
99. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 15295 of 2026 (Panjab
Singh vs State of U.P.
1. Heard Sri Ankit Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant and
Sri Pritosh Malviya, learned AGA for the State.
2. Instant bail application has been filed with prayer to release the
applicant on bail  in Case Crime No. 269 of 2025, under Sections-
8, 21, 22, 29, 60 of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 and 18(c), 27 of the
Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940, Police Station Aliganj, District-
Etah.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant
is the owner of the godown from where recovery of 5640 bottles of
Onerex cough syrup was made by the police. It is further
submitted that actually that godown had already been let out by
the applicant to one Chhote Lal through agreement dated
12.08.2025. A copy of the same has been annexed at page 38 of
the bail application. It is further submitted that at the time of

162
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
raiding the godown, police called the applicants being the owner
of the godown and thereafter falsely implicated the applicant,
though the applicant was not aware about the aforesaid
consignment and actually the said consignment must be in
knowledge of his tenant Chhote Lal. It is further submitted that
from bare perusal of the statement of Promod, it is clear that the
applicant was not involved in illegal trade of codeine cough syrup
and Promod himself kept the codeine based syrup in the godown
at the suggestion of his relatives; therefore, the applicant has
been falsely implicated. It is also submitted that though this fact
was communicated to the police at the time of making raid of the
godown but police has not recorded the statement of tenant
Chhote Lal, who was in actual possession of the godown.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that another
reason for implication of the applicant is that the applicant was
found to be in conversation with co-accused Jitendra, son of Atar
Singh, and Jitendra Singh, son of Rambeer. Both Jitendras are
relatives of the applicant, therefore their conversation with the
applicant is not unusual. It is lastly submitted that there is no
material showing that the applicant was involved in illegal trade of
codeine based cough syrup. Charge sheet has been filed
therefore, there is no requirement for custodial interrogation. The
applicant has no criminal history.  
5. Per contra, learned AGA for the State has vehemently opposed
the prayer and submitted that it is not in dispute that the applicant
was owner of the godown wherein 5640 bottles of Onerex cough
syrup were found, and there is no material to show that the
applicant had let out the godown to one Chhote Lal. It is further
submitted that the applicant was not having any license to store
any medicine. Therefore, applicant may be presumed to have
stored the codeine based cough syrup for transporting the same
for intoxication. Hence, he is not entitled to be released on bail.

163
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
6. I have heard the submissions of learned counsel for the rival
parties and perused the record.
7. Considering the aforesaid submissions and on perusal of the
record, it is not in dispute that during the police raid of the
applicant’s godown on 21.12.2025, 5,640 bottles of Onerex
cough syrup were recovered from the godown of the applicant,
though the applicant did not have a license to store the same.
However, from the statement of the co-accused, Pramod, it is
clear that the applicant was not involved in the illegal
transportation or trafficking of codeine-based Onerex syrup. There
is no evidence that the applicant was aware of the actual content
of the consignment kept by the co-accused in the godown of the
applicant, coupled with the fact that the applicant, through an
agreement dated 12.08.2025, let out this godown to one Chotelal.
Though, the police have not recorded the statement of Chotelal,
coupled with the fact that the applicant has no criminal history,
and the chargesheet has been filed in the present case, and
keeping in view the nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the
accused and taking into account overcrowded jails and heavy
pendency of criminal cases before the trial courts as well as
considering the mandate of the judgement of the Apex Court in
the case of Kapil Wadhawan vs Central Bureau of Investigation
reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 3038 as well as guideline of this
Court in the case of Maya Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. reported in
2024 SCC Online All 6765 regarding grant of bail and without
expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the
opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on
bail. Accordingly, the present application is allowed.
8. Let the applicant- Panjab Singh, involved in the aforementioned
crime 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.

164
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
9. The applicant shall be released on bail on the conditions
mentioned at the tail end of this judgment.
100. Crl Misc. Bail Application No. 23044 of 2026 (Deepu Yadav
Vs. State of U.P.)
1. Heard Sri Devendra Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the
applicant and Sri Paritosh Malviya, learned AGA for the State.
2. Instant bail application has been filed with prayer to release the
applicant on bail during trial in in Case Crime No. 691 of 2025,
Under Sections 336(3), 319(2), 318(4), 3(5) of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita-2023 & under sections 8/22/29 of Narcotic Drugs
and Psychotropic Substances Act, Police Station- Nandagram,
District- Ghaziabad.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant
is the cleaner of truck No.MP16H 1328, which raided by the police
while loading bags containing cartons of Eskuf cough syrup, and a
total 15,300 bottles of Eskuf cough syrup were also recovered
from this truck. It is further submitted that being the cleaner of the
aforesaid truck, the applicant was not aware of the actual contents
of the consignment to be transported. He was wholly dependent
upon the driver of the truck, and his duty was to assist the driver
and to lock and unlock the tailgate after loading and unloading the
truck. The applicant was apprehended by the police while he was
sitting in the truck at the time of loading of the same at Machhli
Godam, Nandigram, Ghaziabad. He further submitted that the
applicant has been falsely implicated, though there is no material
against him regarding his involvement in illegal tracking of
codeine based cough syrup. The applicant has no criminal
history, and he has been falsely implicated. Charge sheet has
been filed therefore, there is in requirement for custodial
interrogation.

165
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
4. On the other hand, learned AGA for the State vehemently
opposed the prayer but could not dispute the fact that the
applicant is cleaner of the aforesaid truck.
5. I have heard the submissions of learned counsel for the rival
parties and perused the record.
6. Considering the aforesaid submissions and taking into account
that the applicant was the khalasi/cleaner of truck No. MP-16-
H-1328, which was found to be loaded with codeine-based cough
syrup, Eskuf, and there is no material to show that the applicant
was aware of the actual content of the loaded consignment,
coupled with the fact that the applicant has no criminal history and
the chargesheet has been filed in the present case, and keeping
in view the nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused
and taking into account overcrowded jails and heavy pendency of
criminal cases before the trial courts as well as considering the
mandate of the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Kapil
Wadhawan vs Central Bureau of Investigation reported in 2025
SCC OnLine SC 3038 as well as guideline of this Court in the
case of Maya Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2024 SCC
Online All 6765 regarding grant of bail and without expressing any
opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the
applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. Accordingly, the
present application is allowed.
7. Let the applicant- Deepu Yadav, involved in the aforementioned
crime 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.
8. The applicant shall be released on bail on the conditions
mentioned at the tail end of this judgment.
101. Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 8147 of 2026 (Jitendra Singh
Vs. State of U.P.)

166
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
1. Heard Sri Salman Ahmad, along with Sri Naseem Ahmad,
learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Paritosh Malviya,
learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to
release the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 269/2025, under
Sections-8, 21, 22, 29, 60 of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 and Section
18(c), 27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, Police Station
Aliganj, District Etah, during the pendency of the trial.
3. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that as per
the prosecution story, on asking the co-accused Pramod to keep
the consignment of Codeine cough syrup, the applicant advised
him to keep the consignment of cough syrup in the godown of co-
accused Punjab Singh. It is further submitted that there is no
material that the applicant is involved in illegal trafficking of
Codeine based cough syrup for the purpose of intoxication and he
has been falsely implicated. It is further submitted that applicant is
a Government employee, working as Collection Amin, Tehsil-
Aliganj, District-Etah. It is further submitted that the applicant has
no criminal history. It is further submitted that charge sheet has
been filed in the present case, therefore, there is no requirement
of custodial interrogation. The applicant is languishing in jail since
22.11.2025. In case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the
liberty of bail and would cooperate in the trial proceedings. 
4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer
for bail and submitted that applicant was arrested from godown
wherefrom, 5640 bottles of Codeine Syrup Onerex were
recovered. Therefore, applicant is involved in illegal trafficking of
Codeine based cough syrup, and hence, he is not entitled to be
released on bail.
5. I have heard the submissions of learned counsel for the rival
parties and perused the record.

167
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
6. Considering the aforesaid submissions and taking into account
that, except for the statement of the co-accused, Pramod, that the
applicant had advised him to keep his consignment of cough
syrup in the godown of Panjab Singh, there is no material to show
that the applicant was involved in the illegal trafficking of codeine-
based cough syrup, as well as taking into account the fact that the
applicant is a government employee (Collection Amin) in Tehsil
Aliganj, District Etah, and considering the fact that the applicant
has no criminal history and the chargesheet has been filed in the
present case and keeping in view the nature of offence, evidence,
complicity of the accused and taking into account overcrowded
jails and heavy pendency of criminal cases before the trial courts
as well as considering the mandate of the judgement of the Apex
Court in the case of Kapil Wadhawan vs Central Bureau of
Investigation reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 3038 as well as
guideline of this Court in the case of Maya Tiwari Vs. State of U.P.
reported in 2024 SCC Online All 6765 regarding grant of bail and
without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of
the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on
bail. Accordingly, the present application is allowed.
7. Let the applicant- Jitendra Singh, involved in the
aforementioned crime 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.
8. The applicant shall be released on bail on the conditions
mentioned at the tail end of this judgment.
102. Crl Misc. Bail Application No.5037 of 2026 (Rajnesh Kumar
Alias Raju Vs. State of U.P.)
1. Heard Sri Salman Ahmad, along with Sri Naseem Ahmad,
learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Paritosh Malviya,
learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

168
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
2. The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to
release the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 269 of 2025,
under Sections 8, 21, 22, 29, 60 of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and under Section 18(c), 27
of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act. 1940, Police Station Aliganj, District
Etah, during the pendency of the trial.
3. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that applicant
was not named in the FIR. More so, no allegation was made
against the applicant in the first statement of co-accused, Pramod.
However in the second statement of co-accused, Pramod, name
of the applicant surfaced, wherein the said co-accused stated that
on his request, the applicant had transported 60 cartons
containing bottles of Codeine cough syrup from Varanasi to Etah,
but there is no recovery of any document showing the
involvement of the applicant in the transportation of Codeine
syrup from Varanasi to Etah. The applicant has been falsely
implicated. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal
history. It is further submitted that charge sheet has been filed in
the present case, therefore, there is no requirement of custodial
interrogation. The applicant is languishing in jail since 30.12.2025.
In case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail
and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.
4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer
for bail, but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.
5. I have heard the submissions of learned counsel for the rival
parties and perused the record.
6. Considering the aforesaid submissions and taking into account
that the applicant was neither named in the FIR nor was any
allegation made in the first statement of the co-accused, Pramod,
and the name of the applicant surfaced in the second statement of
the co-accused, Pramod, regarding the transportation of 60
cartons containing bottles of codeine syrup by the applicant, at the

169
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
request of the co-accused, Pramod, from Varanasi to Etawah,
though there is no other material showing the actual
transportation or recovery of any vehicle involved in the
transportation, coupled with the fact that the applicant has no
criminal history and the chargesheet has been filed in the present
case and keeping in view the nature of offence, evidence,
complicity of the accused and taking into account overcrowded
jails and heavy pendency of criminal cases before the trial courts
as well as considering the mandate of the judgement of the Apex
Court in the case of Kapil Wadhawan vs Central Bureau of
Investigation reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 3038 as well as
guideline of this Court in the case of Maya Tiwari Vs. State of U.P.
reported in 2024 SCC Online All 6765 regarding grant of bail and
without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of
the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on
bail. Accordingly, the present application is allowed.
7. Let the applicant- Rajnesh Kumar alias Raju, involved in the
aforementioned crime 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.
8. The applicant shall be released on bail on the conditions
mentioned at the tail end of this judgment.
103. Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.15183 of 2026 (Raghav Singh
Vs. State of U.P.)
1. Heard Sri Satyvendra Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the
applicant and Sri Paritosh Malviya, learned A.G.A. for the State
and perused the record.
2. The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to
release the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 269 of 2025,
under Sections 8, 21, 22, 29, 60 of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and under Section 18(c), 27

170
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940, Police Station Aliganj, District
Etah, during the pendency of the trial. 
3. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the
allegation against the applicant is that at the time of raid at the
godown of the co-accused, Punjab Singh, the applicant escaped
from the spot. Subsequently, co-accused Pramod in his second
statement named the applicant as a person who advised him to
keep the consignment of Codeine syrup in the godown of the co-
accused Punjab Singh. It is further submitted that there is no
material regarding involvement of the applicant in illegal trafficking
or storage of Codeine based cough syrup. The applicant has been
falsely implicated merely on the basis of confessional statement of
the co-accused, wherein no allegation was made against the
applicant. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal
history. It is further submitted that charge sheet has been filed in
the present case, therefore, there is no requirement of custodial
interrogation. The applicant is languishing in jail since 26.03.2026.
In case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail
and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.
4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer
for bail, but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.
5. I have heard the submissions of learned counsel for the rival
parties and perused the record.
6. Considering the aforesaid submissions and taking into account
the fact that the applicant was neither named in the FIR nor in the
first statement of the co-accused, Pramod, and the name of the
applicant surfaced in the second statement, wherein the only
allegation is that the applicant advised the co-accused, Pramod,
to keep his consignment of codeine cough syrup in the godown of
Panjab Singh, there is no other material showing the involvement
of the applicant in the illegal trafficking or storage of codeine-
based cough syrup, and also considering the fact that the

171
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
applicant was not arrested from the spot, coupled with the fact
that the applicant has no criminal history and the chargesheet has
been filed in the present case and keeping in view the nature of
offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and taking into
account overcrowded jails and heavy pendency of criminal cases
before the trial courts as well as considering the mandate of the
judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Kapil Wadhawan vs
Central Bureau of Investigation reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC
3038 as well as guideline of this Court in the case of Maya Tiwari
Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2024 SCC Online All 6765 regarding
grant of bail and without expressing any opinion on the merits of
the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be
enlarged on bail. Accordingly, the present application is allowed.
7. Let the applicant- Raghav Singh, involved in the
aforementioned crime 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.
8. The applicant shall be released on bail on the conditions
mentioned at the tail end of this judgment.
104. Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.18882 of 2026 (Jitendra Singh
Vs. State of U.P.)
1. Heard Sri Ravesh Kumar Singh along with Sri Divyanshu
Pathak, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Paritosh
Malviya, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to
release the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 269 of 2025,
under Sections 8, 21, 22, 29, 60 of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, and Sections 18(c),
27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, at Police Station
Aliganj, District Etah, during the pendency of the trial. 
3. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that applicant
is the owner of loader bearing registration no. UP-82AT-2921,

172
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
which the applicant usually parked in the godown of co-accused
Punjab Singh during night. The applicant has been falsely
implicated, merely because the loader of the applicant was found
inside the godown of the co-accused Punjab Singh, though
admittedly, the bottles of cough syrup were not loaded in the
loader vehicle of the applicant. It is further submitted that even the
recovery memo of the recovered codiene based syrup shows that
it was signed by the co-accused Pramod, and not by the
applicant, because the applicant was not present at that time. The
applicant was called by the police, as his loader was found parked
in the godown of the co-accused Punjab Singh. Subsequently, the
applicant was arrested. It is further submitted that even in the
CDR conversation of the applicant with the co-accused Punjab
Singh, nothing unusual was found. It is further submitted that the
recovered Codeine based cough syrup having permitted quantity
of godown does not fall within the definition of manufactured drug.
Therefore, applicant has been falsely implicated under the
provisions of NDPS Act. It is further submitted that there is no
material that the applicant was involved in any manner in illegal
trafficking of Codeine based cough syrup. It is further submitted
that the applicant has no criminal history. It is further submitted
that charge sheet has been filed in the present case, therefore,
there is no requirement of custodial interrogation. The applicant is
languishing in jail since 22.12.2025. In case, he is granted bail, he
will not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate in the trial
proceedings.
4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer
for bail and submitted that applicant was arrested from the spot in
question and he was found to be in conversation with the co-
accused Punjab Singh. 
5. I have heard the submissions of learned counsel for the rival
parties and perused the record.

173
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
6. Considering the aforesaid submissions and taking into account
the fact that the applicant has been implicated in the present case
only on the basis that his loader bearing registration No.UP-8280-
2921, was found parked in the premises of the godown of the co-
accused, Panjab Singh, though there is no other incriminating
material against the applicant, and considering the fact that the
applicant has no criminal history and the chargesheet has been
filed in the present case, and keeping in view the nature of
offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and taking into
account overcrowded jails and heavy pendency of criminal cases
before the trial courts as well as considering the mandate of the
judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Kapil Wadhawan vs
Central Bureau of Investigation reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC
3038 as well as guideline of this Court in the case of Maya Tiwari
Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2024 SCC Online All 6765 regarding
grant of bail and without expressing any opinion on the merits of
the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be
enlarged on bail. Accordingly, the present application is allowed.
7. Let the applicant- Jitendra Singh, involved in the
aforementioned crime 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.
8. The applicant shall be released on bail on the conditions
mentioned at the tail end of this judgment.
105. Crl Misc. Bail Application No. 17864 of 2026 (Vikesh @
Pappu Vs. State of U.P.)
1. Heard Sri Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri
Paritosh Malviya, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the
record.
2. The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to
release the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 269 of 2025,
under Sections 8, 21, 22, 29 and 60 of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 and

174
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
18(c) and 27 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, Police
Station Aliganj, District Etah, during the pendency of the trial. 
3. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that as per
the prosecution story, the police raided the godown of one Punjab
Singh and recovered 5640 bottles of Codeine syrup Onerex. One
of the co-accused, Pramod, along with three other accused, were
arrested on the spot. The name of the applicant surfaced in the
statement of the co-accused Pramod, wherein he stated that
applicant had given him 60 cartons of codiene based cough syrup
to sell and earn money for doing pairavi of his jailed brother
Saroj. It is further submitted that except the confessional
statement of the co-accused Pramod, there is no material against
the applicant. Even no recovery has been made from the
applicant. He has been falsely implicated. It is further submitted
that the applicant has criminal history of six cases, apart from the
present case. It is further submitted that charge-sheet has been
filed in the present case, therefore, there is no requirement of
custodial interrogation. The applicant is languishing in jail since
31.03.2026. In case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the
liberty of bail and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.
4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer
for bail and submitted that applicant has not explained the criminal
history of one case i.e. u/s 447 IPC, though he has explained the
criminal history of six other cases. It is further submitted that
applicant is a hardcore criminal, as he was also involved in a case
u/s 302 IPC. 
5. I have heard the submissions of learned counsel for the rival
parties and perused the record.
6. Considering the aforesaid submissions and taking into account
the fact that the applicant was implicated on the basis of the
confessional statement of the co-accused, Pramod, alleging that
the applicant had provided him 16 cartons of codeine-based

175
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
cough syrup, Onerex, to sell in the market and earn money for the
pairavi of his jailed brother. There is no other incriminating
material against the applicant, and considering the fact that the
applicant has explained the criminal history of six cases in the
accompanying affidavit and the chargesheet has been filed in the
present case, and keeping in view the nature of offence,
evidence, complicity of the accused and taking into account
overcrowded jails and heavy pendency of criminal cases before
the trial courts as well as considering the mandate of the
judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Kapil Wadhawan vs
Central Bureau of Investigation reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC
3038 as well as guideline of this Court in the case of Maya Tiwari
Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2024 SCC Online All 6765 regarding
grant of bail and without expressing any opinion on the merits of
the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be
enlarged on bail. Accordingly, the present application is allowed.
7. Let the applicant- Vikesh @ Pappu, involved in the
aforementioned crime 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.
8. The applicant shall be released on bail on the conditions
mentioned at the tail end of this judgment.
106. Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 11617 of 2026 (Priyanka
Gupta Vs. State of U.P.)
1. Heard Sri Rakesh Kumar Mishra along with Sri Sumit Kumar
Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Chandan
Agarwal, learned A.G.A.-I for the State and perused the record.
2. The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to
release the applicant on bail in  Case Crime No. 844/2025, under
Sections-318(4) 336(3), 340(2), 61(2) B.N.S. &
Section-8C/21/22/29 N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station Kotwali Nagar,
District-Banda, during the pendency of the trial.

176
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
3. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that applicant
was not named in the FIR, wherein, the allegation has been made
that the proprietorship concern of the husband of the applicant,
namely M/s. DMC Company, Banda, had received Codeine cough
syrup from Gaurav Transport, Banda and sold it in open market.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the name of
the applicant surfaced in the statement of two witnesses, Ram
Krishna Dwivedi and Deep Chandra Shukla, wherein the
allegations have been made that on behalf of M/s. DMC company,
the present applicant had also received some of the packed
consignments of Codeine based cough syrup. It is further
submitted that no Codeine cough syrup was recovered from the
medicine shop of the applicant, and even otherwise, it is the
husband of the applicant who is proprietor of the M/s. DMC
Company and the applicant, being the wife of the proprietor of
M/s. DMC Company, occasionally received consignments without
knowing the actual content therein. It is further submitted that
applicant is a lady and she has been falsely implicated, without
there being any material against her. Whatever offence may have
been committed, it appears to have been committed by the
applicant’s husband, who is the proprietor of M/s. DMC Company,
a stockist and dealer of medicines. It is further submitted that the
applicant has no criminal history and being a lady, she is entitled
to be released on bail, in view of Section 480(1) BNSS. The
applicant is languishing in jail since 26.02.2026. In case, she is
granted bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail and would
cooperate in the trial proceedings.
4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer
for bail, but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.
5. I have heard the submissions of learned counsel for the rival
parties and perused the record.
6. Considering the aforesaid submissions and taking into account

177
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
the fact that the applicant, being the wife of the proprietor of M/s
DMC Company Pharma, received some of the consignments
allegedly containing codeine-based cough syrup, though no
cough syrup was recovered from the medicine shop of the
applicant’s husband, and the applicant, being a lady, is entitled to
be released on bail in view of Section 480(1) of the BNSS, and
considering the fact that the applicant has no criminal history and
the chargesheet has been filed in the present case, and keeping
in view the nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused
and taking into account overcrowded jails and heavy pendency of
criminal cases before the trial courts as well as considering the
mandate of the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Kapil
Wadhawan vs Central Bureau of Investigation reported in 2025
SCC OnLine SC 3038 as well as guideline of this Court in the
case of Maya Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2024 SCC
Online All 6765 regarding grant of bail and without expressing any
opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the
applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. Accordingly, the
present application is allowed.
7. Let the applicant- Priyanka Gupta, involved in the
aforementioned crime be released on bail, on her furnishing a
personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, to the
satisfaction of the court concerned.
107. Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.25729 of 2026 (Zeeshan Vs.
State of U.P.)
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Paritosh
Malviya, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to
release the applicant on bail in  Case Crime No.046 of 2026,
under section 8/21 D of N.D.P.S Act and 318(4) of B.N.S., P.S
Kotwali, District- Rampur,  during the pendency of the trial.

178
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
3. As per the prosecution story, police checked three vehicles in a
ground adjacent to Ashram Padati Road, Rampur. One white
scooty bearing no.UP-21-CU-5785 was in possession of co-
accused Akshay and police also recovered 200 bottles of
CODECTUS codeine-based cough syrup and 1680 tramadol
capsule from this scooty. Similarly, the motor cycle no.UP-21-
CZ-4575 was recovered from the possession of the present
applicant and 100 bottles of CODECTUS cough syrup was also
recovered from the motor cycle of the applicant. Similarly a
Duster Car bearing No.UP-13-AS-0999 of maroon colour was
recovered from possession of one co-accused Jabbar and on
searching the duster car, 2692 bottles of CODECTUS syrup, 226
bottles of WESCODEX cough syrup and 144 bottles of VERICOF
cough syrup was recovered. Apart from this, one cartoon
containing 6720 tramadol capsule was also recovered from duster
car.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that only
recovery against the applicant is 100 bottles of codectuss cough
syrup though there was no public witness of the aforesaid
recovery and applicant has no criminal history. It is further
submitted that applicant was simply transporting 100 codeine
cough syrup at the instructions of medical shop owner and having
possession of codeine syrup without license is itself punishable
under Drugs and Cosmetics Act, therefore, provisions of NDPS
Act have been illegally invoked against the applicant, though,
there is no material that applicant was transporting 100 cough
syrup for the purpose of intoxication. It is further submitted that
charge sheet has been filed in the present case, therefore, there
is no requirement of custodial interrogation. The applicant is
languishing in jail since 12.04.2026. In case, he is granted bail, he
will not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate in the trial
proceedings.

179
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer
for bail and submitted that at the time of recovery of 100 bottles of
cough syrup, applicant could not produce any license or
transporting document regarding 100 bottles of cough syrup
containing codeine. Therefore, the provision of NDPS Act has
been rightly invoked against the applicant. Therefore, applicant is
not entitled to be released on bail.
6. I have heard the submissions of learned counsel for the rival
parties and perused the record.
7. Considering the aforesaid submissions and taking into account
the fact that a packed cardboard carton was recovered from the
motorcycle of the applicant, containing very small quantity(100
bottles) of cough syrup CODECTUS , which was being transported
by the applicant at the instance of the medical shop owner,
coupled with the fact that there was no public witness to the
aforesaid recovery and there is no material to show that the
applicant was involved in the illegal trafficking of codeine-based
cough syrup, CODECTUS and considering the fact that the
applicant is student of pharmacy college, having no criminal
history and the chargesheet has been filed in the present case
and keeping in view the nature of offence, evidence, complicity of
the accused and taking into account overcrowded jails and heavy
pendency of criminal cases before the trial courts as well as
considering the mandate of the judgement of the Apex Court in
the case of Kapil Wadhawan vs Central Bureau of Investigation
reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 3038 as well as guideline of this
Court in the case of Maya Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. reported in
2024 SCC Online All 6765 regarding grant of bail and without
expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the
opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on
bail. Accordingly, the present application is allowed.

180
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
8. Let the applicant- Zeeshan, involved in the aforementioned
crime 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.
9. The applicant shall be released on bail on the conditions
mentioned at the tail end of this judgment.
108. Crl Misc. Bail Application No.17349 of 2026 (Usman Khan vs
State of U.P.
1. Heard Sri Amit Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the
applicant and Sri Paritosh Malviya, learned AGA for the State.
2. Instant bail application has been filed with prayer to release the
applicant on bail during trial in Case Crime No. 246 of 2025, under
sections 8 (c), 21 (c), 26 (d) of N.D.P.S. Act and sections 318(4),
338, 336(3), 340 (2) of B.N.S. Police Station Ganj, District
Rampur.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant
is proprietor of Boby Agency medical store and an inspection of
Drug Inspector was made on 05.01.2026 and during investigation,
it was found that the applicant had purchased 42000/- bottles of
codeine based cough syrup namely CODECTUS TR. However,
the applicant could not produced any documents regarding the
sale thereof. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted
that actually the applicant has submitted invoices of sale 2000
bottles codeine cough syrup to the investigating agency,
therefore, at the most, it could be said the applicant does not have
details of sale regarding remaining 40000 bottles of codeine
based cough syrup.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that it is
case of unaccounted sale of 40000 bottles codeine based cough
syrup CODECTUS which is in violation of drug license issued to
the applicant. Therefore, at the most, it could be an offence under
Drugs and Cosmetics Act for which a complaint is to file by the

181
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
drug inspector and provision of NDPS has been incorrectly
invoked against the applicant as applicant has not committed any
offence under NDPS Act. It is further submitted that CODECTUS
TR cough syrup has permitted quantities of codeine, therefore,
the same will not fall in the definition of manufactured drug. The
applicant has no criminal history. Charge sheet has been filed,
therefore, there is no requirement for custodial interrogation.
5. Per contra, learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer and
submitted that as per record, the applicant has purchased 42000
bottles codeine cough syrup between 25.06.2024 to 11.11.2024
and till the date of inspection 05.01.2025, the applicant sold the
entire stock of 40000 bottles of cough syrup and there was no
record of sale of 42000 bottles of cough syrup available in the
shop of the applicant. It is further submitted that though the
applicant has produced sale invoice of 2000 bottles of codeine
cough syrup but the same was also found to be forged. It is lastly
submitted by learned AGA that it is not simply a case of
unaccounted sale of some bottles of codeine cough syrup. It is
case of sale of diverting 42000 bottles of codeine based cough
syrup within a period of seven months as the applicant does not
have any documents regarding the sale. Therefore provision of
NDPS Act has been rightly invoked. It is lastly submitted that the
applicant has produced forged invoices of sale section of
committing forgery has also be invoked against the applicant.
6. I have heard the submissions of learned counsel for the rival
parties and perused the record.
7. Considering the aforesaid submissions and taking into account
the fact that the applicant could produce the records of sale of
40,000 bottles of codeine-based cough syrup out of 42,000 bottles
purchased by the applicant during the last seven months, and
there is no material to show that the applicant had sold the
remaining 40,000 bottles of codeine syrup within seven

182
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
months(6000 bottles per month) without maintaining the records
of sale, which is not the normal sale but appears to be sale for the
purpose other than medicinal use, which is not simply a violation
of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, but also attract provisions of
NDPS Act in view of the law laid down in the preceding part of this
judgement, therefore this court is not inclined to release the
applicant on bail.
10. According bail application of applicant is rejected.
109. Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.19618 of 2026 (Salman Khan
Vs. State of U.P.)
1. Heard Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the
applicant and Sri Paritosh Malviya, learned AGA for the State.
2. The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to
release the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 248 of 2025 under
Sections-8 (C) / 21(C) / 26(d) of NDPS Act and section-318(4),
338, 336(3), 340(2) of BNS Police Station Ganj, District-Rampur,
during the pendency of the trial.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant
is proprietor of Fairdeal Agency. The Drug Inspector made an
inspection on 05.06.2026 and during inspection, he found that the
applicant had purchased 91000/- bottles of codeine based cough
syrup namely CODECTUS TR. However, the applicant could not
produced any documents regarding the sale thereof.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that actually
the applicant has submitted invoices of sale of 2000 bottles cough
syrup to the investigating agency. Therefore, it is case of
unaccounted sale of 89000 bottles codeine based cough syrup
CODECTUS TR, which is in violation of drug license issued to the
applicant. Therefore, at the most, it could be an offence under
Drugs and Cosmetics Act for which a complaint is to be filed by
the drug inspector and provisions of NDPS have been incorrectly

183
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
invoked against the applicant as applicant has not committed any
offence under NDPS Act. It is further submitted that CODECTUS
cough syrup has permitted quantities of codeine, therefore, the
same will not fall in the definition of manufactured drug. The
applicant has no criminal history. Charge sheet has been filed,
therefore, there is no requirement for custodial interrogation.
5. Per contra, learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer and
submitted that as per record, the applicant has purchased 91000
bottles codeine cough syrup(CODECTUS) between 08.01.2024 to
18.09.2024 and till the date of inspection 05.06.2025, the
applicant sold the entire stock of 89000 bottles of cough syrup
and there was no record of sale of 89000 bottles of cough syrup
available in the shop of the applicant. It is further submitted that
though the applicant has produced sale invoices of 2000 bottles of
codeine cough syrup but the same were also found to be forged.
It is lastly submitted by learned AGA that it is not simply a case of
unaccounted sale of some bottles of codeine cough syrup. It is
case of sale of diverting 91000 bottles of codeine based cough
syrup within a period of seven months as the applicant did not
have any documents regarding the sale. Therefore provision of
NDPS Act has been rightly invoked. It is lastly submitted that the
applicant has produced forged sale invoices therefore section of
committing forgery has also be invoked against the applicant.
6. I have heard the submissions of learned counsel for the rival
parties and perused the record.
7. Considering the aforesaid submissions and taking into account
the fact that the applicant could not produce the records of sale of
91,000 bottles of codeine-based cough syrup purchased by the
applicant during the last 17 months(5353 bottles per
month),without maintaining the records of sale, which is not the
normal sale but appears to be sale for the purpose other than
medicinal use, which is not simply a violation of the Drugs and

184
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
Cosmetics Act, but also attract provisions of NDPS Act in view of
the law laid down in the preceding part of this judgement, and also
produced forge sale invoices, therefore this court is not inclined to
release the applicant on bail.
8. According bail application of applicant is rejected.
110. Crl Misc. Bail Application No.27222 of 2026 (Harsh Agarwal
Vs. State of U.P.)
1. Heard Sri Manish Tiwary, learned Senior Advocate assisted by
Sri Atharv Dixit and Sri Suyash Mehrotra, learned counsel for the
applicant and Sri Paritosh Malviya, learned A.G.A. for the State
and perused the record.
2. The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to
release the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 215 of 2025,
under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2) of BNS, 2023 and
Section 8(c)/21(c)/26(d) of NDPS Act, Police Station Kotwali,
District-Rampur, during the pendency of the trial.
3. As per the prosecution story, applicant is proprietor of M/s Lata
Pharmaceutical and The Drug Inspector made an inspection on
14.08.2025 and during inspection he found that the applicant had
purchased 20,000 bottles of codeine based cough syrup namely
CODECTUS TR. However, the applicant could not produced any
documents regarding the sale thereof. Thereafter police
investigation revealed that applicant had purchased 79087 bottles
of CODECTUS from Manufacturer M/s Cadila Pharmaceuticals
Ltd.. During the investigation applicant has produced sale invoices
of 36700 bottles of cough syrup to the investigating agency but
some of them found to be forged.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that
applicant has purchased 42387 bottles of CODECTUS cough
syrup and non producing the sale invoices thereof, will be the
case of unaccounted sale of 42387 bottles of cough syrup which

185
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
is in violation of drug license issued to the applicant. Therefore, at
the most, it could be an offence under Drugs and Cosmetics Act
for which a complaint is to be filed by the drug inspector and
provisions of NDPS have been incorrectly invoked against the
applicant as applicant has not committed any offence under
NDPS Act. It is further submitted that codectus cough syrup has
permitted quantities of codeine, therefore, the same will not fall in
the definition of manufactured drug. The applicant has no criminal
history. Charge sheet has been filed, therefore, there is no
requirement for custodial interrogation.
5. Per contra, learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer and
submitted that as per record, the applicant has purchased 79087
bottles of codeine cough syrup between 30.04.2025 to
28.11.2025 and sold the entire stock of 79087 of bottles but
produced the sale records of 36700 bottles and there was no sale
records of 42387 bottles of cough syrup. It is further submitted
that sale invoices of 36700 bottles of codeine cough syrup
produced by the applicant were found to have forged as the
purchasers/retailers disputed the same. It is lastly submitted by
learned AGA that it is not simply a case of unaccounted sale of
some bottles of codeine cough syrup. It is case of sale of diverting
79087 bottles of codeine based cough syrup within a period of
seven months as the applicant does not have any documents
regarding the sale. Therefore provision of NDPS Act has been
rightly invoked. It is lastly submitted that the applicant has
produced forged sale invoices, therefore applicant also committed
forgery.
6. I have heard the submissions of learned counsel for the rival
parties and perused the record.
From the record it is clear that applicant purchased 79,087 bottles
of CODECTUS cough syrup from M/s Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd
and also sold the same within seven months(11300 bottles per

186
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
month) but could not produce the sale records thereof and sale
invoices of 36700 bottles produced by the applicant were found to
have forged during investigation. Therefore sale of about 11300
bottles per month, without maintaining the records of sale, is not
the normal sale but appears to be sale for the purpose other than
medicinal use, which is not simply a violation of the Drugs and
Cosmetics Act, but also attract provisions of NDPS Act in view of
the law laid down in the preceding part of this judgement.
Therefore this court is not inclined to release the applicant on bail.
According bail application of applicant is rejected.
111. Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 20708 of 2026 (Pankaj Kumar
Vs. State of U.P.)
1. Heard Sri Awadhesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the
applicant, Sri A.K. Malviya, learned A.G.A. for the State and
perused the record.
2. The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to
release the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 472 of 2025,
under Sections 210, 223, 318(4) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
and Section 8/21/29 N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station Barkhera, District
Pilibhit, during the pendency of the trial.
3. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the
applicant is the proprietor of M/s Surya Medical Store. The Drug
Department inspected the shop of the stockist, M/s Extreme
Health Solutions, on 20.11.2025 and, during inspection, the
proprietor of M/s Extreme Health Solutions, namely, Rohit
Sabharwal, informed the drug officials that he had sold 17,800
bottles of Rexley-T codeine-based cough syrup to the present
applicant. Thereafter, the Drug Department conducted an
inspection of the shop of the applicant on 06.12.2025 and, during
inspection, no document was found regarding the sale or
purchase of any cough syrup bottles which were allegedly sold by
M/s Extreme Health Solutions to the applicant. It was also found

187
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
that the applicant had transferred Rs. 11,75,050/- to the account
of the firm of Rohit Sabharwal regarding different medicines, and
this fact was admitted by Rohit Sabharwal, stating that there is a
long-standing relationship between the applicant and Rohit
Sabharwal.
4. It is further submitted that there is no evidence of receiving the
actual delivery of any cough syrup by the applicant from the firm
of co-accused Rohit Sabharwal; therefore, the applicant has been
falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that
regarding the transfer of Rs. 11,75,050/- in the account of co-
accused Rohit Sabharwal, the applicant had submitted a detailed
affidavit showing the medicines which were purchased by the
applicant from Rohit Sabharwal, for which the payment was
made, which is also part of the case diary. It is also submitted that
no e-way bill was produced by Rohit Sabharwal showing the
transportation of the alleged sale of 17,800 bottles of cough syrup
to the applicant. These facts show that Rohit Sabharwal prepared
a forged bill in the name of the applicant's firm and sold the same
in the open market. It is further submitted that the applicant has
no criminal history. It is further submitted that the charge sheet
has been filed in the present case; therefore, there is no
requirement for custodial interrogation. The applicant is a law-
abiding citizen and he is languishing in jail since 18.03.2026. In
case he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and
would cooperate in the trial proceedings.
5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer
for bail and submitted that as per the record of M/s Extreme
Health Solutions, the applicant purchased 17,800 bottles of cough
syrup Rexley-T, but on inspection, he could not show any
document showing the purchase or sale of the same. It is further
submitted that even the wife of the applicant stated in her
statement recorded under Section 180 BNSS that the applicant
had told her that he had purchased Rexley-T syrup from M/s

188
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
Extreme Health Solutions and further sold it at his medical shop
through Aslam, and there were online transactions between the
applicant and co-accused Mohd. Aslam. Above facts show that
the applicant had sold the Rexley-T cough syrup without
prescription to different persons through Mohd. Aslam. Therefore,
the provisions of the NDPS Act have rightly been invoked against
the present applicant. It is further submitted that the e-way bill
received from Rohit Sabharwal clearly shows the delivery of
codeine-based cough syrup to the present applicant.
6. I have heard the submissions of learned counsel for the rival
parties and perused the record.
7. Considering the aforesaid submissions and taking into account
that there is no material regarding the actual delivery of 17,800
bottles of cough syrup (Rexley-T) by M/s Extreme Health Solution
to the applicant, and the details submitted through the affidavit by
the applicant show the transfer of Rs. 11,75,050/- by the applicant
to the account of M/s Extreme Health Solution with regard to
several other medicines purchased by the applicant’s firm from
M/s Extreme Health Solution and considering the fact that the
applicant has no criminal history and the chargesheet has been
filed in the present case and keeping in view the nature of
offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and taking into
account overcrowded jails and heavy pendency of criminal cases
before the trial courts as well as considering the mandate of the
judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Kapil Wadhawan vs
Central Bureau of Investigation reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC
3038 as well as guideline of this Court in the case of Maya Tiwari
Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2024 SCC Online All 6765 regarding
grant of bail and without expressing any opinion on the merits of
the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be
enlarged on bail. Accordingly, the present application is allowed.

189
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
6. Let the applicant- Pankaj Kumar, involved in the
aforementioned crime 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.
7. The applicant shall be released on bail on the conditions
mentioned at the tail end of this judgment.
112. Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 26042 of 2026 (Mohd Aslam
Vs. State of U.P.).
1. Heard Sri Awadhesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the
applicant, Sri A.K. Malviya, learned A.G.A. for the State and
perused the record.
2. The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to
release the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 472 of 2025,
under Sections 8/21/29 N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station Barkhera,
District Pilibhit, during the pendency of the trial.
3. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that after the
raid at the medical store of Pankaj Kumar, who was running a
medical store in the name of Surya Medical Store, the applicant
was arrested on the basis of the confessional statement of co-
accused Pankaj Kumar, wherein he stated that he used to sell the
codeine-based cough syrup Rexley-T through the present
applicant to different medical stores, though the police has not
recovered any document or any bottle of codeine-based cough
syrup. There is no material against the applicant showing that he
was involved in purchasing and selling the cough syrup from co-
accused Pankaj Kumar and selling it in the market; yet, he has
been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted
that the applicant has no criminal history. It is further submitted
that the charge sheet has been filed in the present case;
therefore, there is no requirement for custodial interrogation. The
applicant is a law-abiding citizen and he is languishing in jail since

190
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
09.06.2026. In case he is granted bail, he will not misuse the
liberty of bail and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.
4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer
for bail and submitted that not only in the confessional statement
of co-accused Pankaj Kumar but also in the statement of Pankaj
Kumar's wife, the name of the applicant surfaced as the person
who took the codeine syrup from co-accused Pankaj Kumar and
sold it in the open market. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled
to be released on bail.
5. I have heard the submissions of learned counsel for the rival
parties and perused the record.
6. Considering the aforesaid submissions and taking into account
that, except the statement of the co-accused, Pankaj Kumar and
his wife, there is no material against the applicant regarding his
involvement in the illegal purchase or sale of codeine-based
cough syrup (Rexley-T), and considering the fact that the
applicant has no criminal history and the chargesheet has been
filed in the present case, and keeping in view the nature of
offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and taking into
account overcrowded jails and heavy pendency of criminal cases
before the trial courts as well as considering the mandate of the
judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Kapil Wadhawan vs
Central Bureau of Investigation reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC
3038 as well as guideline of this Court in the case of Maya Tiwari
Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2024 SCC Online All 6765 regarding
grant of bail and without expressing any opinion on the merits of
the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be
enlarged on bail. Accordingly, the present application is allowed.
7. Let the applicant- Mohd Aslam, involved in the aforementioned
crime 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.

191
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
8. The applicant shall be released on bail on the conditions
mentioned at the tail end of this judgment.
113. Crl Misc. Bail Application No. 15288 of 2026 (Ankush Singh
Vs. State of U.P.)
1. Heard Sri Udai Karan Saxena, learned Senior Advocate
assisted by Ms. Divya Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant,
Sri Chandan Agarwal, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused
the record.
2. The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to
release the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 198 of 2025,
under Sections 8, 18, 21, 26D, 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act, P.S.
Puramufti, District Prayagraj, during the pendency of the trial.
3. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that, as per
the allegation made in the FIR, a total of 1,50,000/- bottles of
Eskuf codeine syrup were purchased by Ashutosh Pharma from
Modern Health Care, New Delhi. It is also submitted that Ashutosh
Pharma also purchased 5,61,867 bottles of codeine cough syrup
from SB Traders, New Delhi, which is the proprietorship concern
of Shadab.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant
was not named in the FIR; subsequently, in the confessional
statement of the proprietor of Ashutosh Pharma, this fact came
into picture that Ashutosh Pharma had sold 7,11,867 bottles of
Eskuf cough syrup to Sunrise Traders, which is the proprietorship
concern of Shivam Dwivedi. Thereafter, after the arrest of Shivam
Dwivedi, he made his confessional statement and stated that the
present applicant, Ankush Singh, and co-accused Dhan Dev
Maurya were actively involved in the opening of Sunrise Traders
and they are the actual persons who were operating this firm.
During investigation, it was found that the applicant had deposited
Rs. 4,50,000/- in the account of Ashutosh Pharma and only then

192
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is
further submitted that, except the confessional statement of
Shivam Dwivedi, there is no material against the applicant. It is
further submitted that the applicant has explained the criminal
history of two cases. It is further submitted that charge sheet has
been filed in the present case; therefore, there is no requirement
of custodial interrogation. The applicant is a law-abiding citizen
and he is languishing in jail since 28.02.2026. In case he is
granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and would
cooperate in the trial proceedings.
5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer
for bail and submitted that at the time of opening the firm of
Ashutosh Pharma, the present applicant deposited Rs. 4,50,000/-
to open the account of Ashutosh Pharma. Thereafter, co-accused
Dhan Dev Maurya deposited more than 6 crores (cash) in the
account of Ashutosh Pharma. It is further submitted that, the
landlord of the rented shop of Ashutosh Pharma, stated in her
statement that at the time of taking the shop on rent, the present
applicant had also come along with Ashutosh(proprietor of
Ashutosh Pharma). It is further submitted that the CCTV footage
of the bank also shows that the applicant had deposited the
amount in the account of Ashutosh Pharma.
6. I have heard the submissions of learned counsel for the rival
parties and perused the record.
7. Considering the aforesaid submissions and taking into account
that, except the statement of the co-accused, Shivam Dwivedi,
regarding the active involvement of the applicant in opening the
firm of Shivam Dwivedi and depositing Rs. 4,50,000/- in the
account of M/s Ashutosh Pharma, there is no material against the
applicant regarding his involvement in the sale, purchase, or
transportation of codeine-based cough syrup, and considering the
fact that the applicant has explained the criminal history of two

193
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
cases in the accompanying affidavit and the chargesheet has
been filed in the present case, and keeping in view the nature of
offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and taking into
account overcrowded jails and heavy pendency of criminal cases
before the trial courts as well as considering the mandate of the
judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Kapil Wadhawan vs
Central Bureau of Investigation reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC
3038 as well as guideline of this Court in the case of Maya Tiwari
Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2024 SCC Online All 6765 regarding
grant of bail and without expressing any opinion on the merits of
the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be
enlarged on bail. Accordingly, the present application is allowed.
8. Let the applicant- Ankush Singh, involved in the
aforementioned crime 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. 
9. The applicant shall be released on bail on the conditions
mentioned at the tail end of this judgment.
114. Crl. Misc Bail Application No. 26170 of 2026 (Ravikar Singh
Vs. State of U.P.)
1. Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the
applicant, Sri Chandan Agarwal, learned A.G.A. for the State and
perused the record.
2. The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to
release the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 570 of 2025,
under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 208 B.N.S. and
Sections 8, 18, 21, 26D of the N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station
Nawabganj, District- Prayagraj, during the pendency of the trial.
3. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the
applicant is the proprietor of Azad Medical Agency, Prayagraj and

194
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
is also having a licence from the Drug Department to sell and
stock medicines. As per the prosecution story, inspection of the
shop of the applicant was made on 26.11.2025 and it was also
found that the applicant had purchased 1,18,000/- bottles of New
Phensedyl cough syrup from Saili Traders, Ranchi. Thereafter, he
sold the above purchased bottles to five firms, namely, Kedar
Medical Agency, Jaunpur, M/s Shiv Enterprises, Chandauli,
Mahadev Pharma, Pratapgarh, Sana Medical, Varanasi and
Akash Distributors, Varanasi, but during investigation it was found
that as per the toll plaza traceability report, there was no actual
transportation of 1,18,000/- bottles of codeine syrup from Saili
Traders to the applicant. However, the applicant, after receiving
Rs. 2 crores from the five firms mentioned above, transferred the
same to the account of Saili Traders. The allegation is that the
firms to whom the applicant had sold the cough syrup are non-
existing firms as these firs are not dealing in the business of
medicines.
4. It is further submitted that the applicant has been falsely
implicated in the present case, though the applicant has closed
his firm and he is not dealing in the business of purchase or sale
of medicines. It is further submitted that purchase of cough syrup
from Saili Traders and the subsequent sale of same by the
applicant, was during the course of business of medicines, as the
applicant was having a drug licence to sell and purchase of
medicines. Therefore, the applicant has not committed any
offence. The e-way bill also shows that the consignment of
1,18,000/- bottles of codeine-based cough syrup was transferred
to the applicant's firm, which was subsequently sold by the
applicant to the above five different firms. Therefore, the applicant
is entitled to be released on bail. It is further submitted that the
applicant has no criminal history. It is further submitted that
charge sheet has been filed in the present case; therefore, there
is no requirement of custodial interrogation. The applicant is a

195
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
law-abiding citizen and he is languishing in jail since 30.01.2026.
In case he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and
would cooperate in the trial proceedings.
5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer
for bail and submitted that, as per the traceability report of the toll
plaza, the actual consignment of 1,18,000/- bottles of Phensedyl
codeine syrup was not delivered at the firm of the applicant, which
was duly corroborated by the transporter of the trucks mentioned
in the e-way bill. It is further submitted that the five firms to whom
the applicant had delivered the codeine syrup are not engaged in
any business and the amount was deposited in those firms in
cash without any business; subsequently, the same was
transferred to the the applicant, which was further transferred by
the applicant in to the account of Saili Traders. Therefore, the
applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.
6. I have heard the submissions of learned counsel for the rival
parties and perused the record.
7. Considering the fact that though E-Way Bill shows that the
applicant has purchased 1,18,000 bottles of New Phensedyl
cough syrup from Saili Traders but as per the Toll Plaza
traceability report as well as statement of transporters, there is no
actual delivery of the above bottles of codeine based cough syrup
to the applicant and further transfers of 1,18,000 bottles codeine
based cough syrup shown by the applicant to five firms were also
not actually delivered though amount of Rs. 2 crore was
transferred by the five purchaser firms to the account of the
applicant, which was subsequently transferred to Saili Traders.
However, the purchasing firms are not engaged in any business
and huge cash amount was deposited in their account which was
subsequently transferred in the account of the applicant’s firm,
prima facie shows the illegal transportation of codeine based
cough syrup by the applicant and Saili Traders. Therefore, this

196
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
Court is not inclined to release the applicant on bail
8. Accordingly, his bail application is rejected.
115. C.M.B.A. No. 20174 of 2026 (Azad Singh @ Golu Vs. State
of U.P.)
1. Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Gautam, learned counsel for the
applicant, Sri Chandan Agarwal, learned A.G.A. for the State and
perused the record.
2. Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Gautam, learned counsel for the
applicant, Sri Chandan Agarwal, learned A.G.A. for the State and
perused the record.
3. The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to
release the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 570 of 2025,
under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 208 B.N.S. and
Sections 8, 18, 21, 26D of the N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station
Nawabganj, District Prayagraj, during the pendency of the trial.
4. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the
applicant was not named in the FIR; he has been falsely
implicated in the present case only on the basis of the statement
of the landlord of the shop of the co-accused, wherein he stated
that applicant had also accompanied the co-accused, at the time
of taking the shop on rent. It is further submitted that there is no
incriminating material against the applicant regarding his
involvement in illegal trafficking of codeine-based cough syrup. It
is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history. It is
further submitted that charge sheet has been filed in the present
case; therefore, there is no requirement of custodial interrogation.
The applicant is a law-abiding citizen and he is languishing in jail
since 06.04.2026. In case he is granted bail, he will not misuse
the liberty of bail and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

197
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer
for bail and submitted that the applicant is a friend of the co-
accused and it is clear from the statement of the landlord of the
rented shop of the co-accused that the applicant played an active
role in providing the shop to the co-accused. Therefore, the
applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.
6. I have heard the submissions of learned counsel for the rival
parties and perused the record.
7. Considering the fact that except the statement of landlord of the
rented shop of the co-accused regarding arranging shop for co-
accused, which was used by the co-accused for running business
of codeine based cough syrup there is no material against the
applicant and also taken into account the applicant has no
criminal history and charge sheet has been filed and keeping in
view the nature of offence, evidence, complicity of accused and
taking into account overcrowded jails and heavy pendency of
criminal cases before the trial courts as well as considering the
mandate of the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Kapil
Wadhawan vs Central Bureau of Investigation reported in 2025
SCC Online SC 3038 as well as guideline of this Court in the case
of Maya Tiwari vs State of U.P. reported in 2024 SCC Online All
6765 regarding grant of bail and without expressing any opinion
on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is
entitled to be enlarged on bail.
8. Let the applicant- Azad Singh @ Golu involved in the
aforementioned crime 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. 
9. The applicant shall be released on bail on the conditions
mentioned at the tail end of this judgment.

198
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
116. Crl Misc. Bail Application No. 21158 of 2026 (Faijur Rahman
Vs. State of U.P.)
1. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Pathak, learned counsel for the applicant
and Sri Chandan Agarwal, learned AGA for the State.
2. Present application has been filed with a prayer to release the
applicant on bail during trial in Case Crime no. 212 of 2025, u/s
8/18/21, 26(D) of The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 and u/s 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2)
61(B) of BNS, Police Station Airport, District Prayagraj. 
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant
was not named in the FIR, wherein allegation has been made that
during inspection by the Drug Department on 15.10.2025, it was
found that the M/S M.K. Health Care, Prayagraj of which Mohd.
Saif is proprietor, had purchased  89,600 bottles of Eskuf cough
syrup from M/s Agrawal Brothers, Kanpur on 5.9.2025, but there
was no actual delivery of the same. Learned counsel for the
applicant further submitted that the applicant is also proprietor of
M/S J.K. Pharma, Prayagraj. This firm was also opened on the
instruction of proprietor of M/S M.K. Health Care. The allegation
against the applicant is that he had deposited Rs. 3,94,00,000/-
as cash, in the account of M/S M.K. Health Care, being the
handler of Mohd Saif and other co-accused persons. Therefore,
the applicant has been falsely implicated and he has explained
the criminal history of one case in the accompanying affidavit.
Charge sheet has been filed therefore, there is no requirement for
custodial interrogation.
4. Per contra, learned AGA for the State vehemently opposed the
prayer and submitted that the applicant is the main accused and
also running M/s M.K. Health Care through Mohd. Saif, which
purchased 89,600 bottles of Eskuf cough syrup from M/s Agrawal
Brothers, Kanpur on 5.9.2025 and 9,87,724 bottles of new

199
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
phensedyl from Saili Traders. There was no actual delivery of the
same, though E-way Bill was generated, but traceability report of
the toll plaza as well as the statement of the transporters
corroborated the fact that no actual delivery was made by Saili
Traders to M/s M.K. Health Care. It is further submitted that the
present applicant, who is proprietor of M/S J.K. Pharma had
deposited Rs.2,76,77,000/- in the account of M/S M.K. Health
Care within eleven months. It was further found that Rs. 4.30
crore was also deposited in cash in the account of M/S/ J.K.
Pharma(proprietorship concern of the applicant), without any
business. This shows that the applicant is handler of the main
accused Shubham Jaiswal of Saili Traders. He deposited the
amount in cash to M/S/ M.K. Health Care as well as M/S J.K.
Pharma which was subsequently transferred to Saili Traders. 
5. I have heard the submissions of learned counsel for the rival
parties and perused the record.
6. Records show that the applicant was the proprietor of M/s J.K.
Pharma having no business in medicine but applicant deposited
cash of 4.30 crores in its account, thereafter applicant deposited
Rs.2,76,77,000/ in the account of M/s M K Health which is
involved in purchase of 9,87,724 bottles of new phensedyl from
Saili Traders but no further sale or available stock. Above
Amount was subsequently transferred in the account of sailing
Traders. It is also revealed from the available material that despite
huge transfer of money by the applicant and his brother Mohd.
Saif there was no actual delivery of Phensedyl cough syrup by the
sailing trader. These facts prima-facie show involvement of the
applicant in illegal trafficking of codeine based cough syrup.
Therefore this court is not inclined to release the applicant on bail.
7. Accordingly bail application of the applicant is rejected.
117. Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.7664 of 2026 (Parag Bansal

200
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
Vs. State of U.P.)
1. Heard Sri Sunil Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri
Anoop Trivedi, learned AAG for the State. 
2. Present application has been filed with a prayer to release the
applicant on bail during trial in Case Crime No. 451 of 2025, under
Sections 318(4) BNS and 8/21/22 NDPS Act, P.S- Thanabhawan,
District- Shamli. 
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant
is a proprietor of Dimple Medical Agency and having drug license
as a retailer. Allegations against the applicant is that during the
inspection, the Drug Department recovered 869 bottles of codeine
based cough syrup though on the label, it was mentioned that “not
for sale”. 
4. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that it is not
in dispute that the applicant is a license drug retailer and he is
authorised to store the codeine based cough syrup and other
medicines. It is further submitted that the applicant had stored the
codeine based cough syrup marked as “not for sale” and that
storage does not constitute any violation of NDPS Act, therefore,
provision of NDPS Act has been incorrectly invoked. It is further
submitted that there is no independent witness of the aforesaid
recovery. The applicant has no criminal history. Charge sheet has
been filed; therefore, there is no requirement for custodial
interrogation. Hence, the applicant is entitled to be released on
bail.
5. Learned AGA for the State vehemently opposed the
submissions and submitted that there was recovery of 869 bottles
of codeine based syrup, which was “not for sale”; therefore, the
provision of NDPS has been rightly invoked.

201
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
6. I have heard the submissions of learned counsel for the rival
parties and perused the record.
7. Considering the fact that the applicant is license drug dealer
and merely the recovery of 869 bottles of codeine based cough
syrup having label not for sale is not sufficient to attract the
provisions of NDPS Act, as there is no provision to keep the
sample bottles on behalf of manufacturing company to deliver the
same to doctors; coupled with the fact that charge sheet has been
filed and the applicant has no criminal history and keeping in view
the nature of offence, evidence, complicity of accused and taking
into account overcrowded jails and heavy pendency of criminal
cases before the trial courts as well as considering the mandate of
the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Kapil Wadhawan
vs Central Bureau of Investigation reported in 2025 SCC Online
SC 3038 as well as guideline of this Court in the case of Maya
Tiwari vs State of U.P. reported in 2024 SCC Online All 6765
regarding grant of bail and without expressing any opinion on the
merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled
to be enlarged on bail.
8. Let the applicant- Parag Bansal involved in the aforementioned
crime 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.
9. The applicant shall be released on bail on the conditions
mentioned at the tail end of this judgment.
118. Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 25190 of 2026 (Umesh
Chandra Alias Umesh Chandra Chaturvedi Vs. State of U.P.  
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Anoop Trivedi,
learned AAG for the State.

202
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
2. Present application has been filed with a prayer to release the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No 0646 of 2025, under sections
318(4), 278, 338, 336(3), 340(2) of BNS and Section 8/21 of
NDPS Act, Police Station Kotwali Orai, District Jalaun. 
 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant
is proprietor of Ultra Fine Chemicals, which is licensed drug
dealer and as per prosecution story applicant has purchased
21,000 bottles of cough syrups of Phencypink-T from Idika Life
Science Ltd., Lucknow but during inspection of Drug Inspector
neither the stock of the aforesaid purchased cough syrup, nor any
document regarding sale of the same, was found. Counsel for the
applicant has submitted that it is not in dispute that applicant had
purchased 21,000 bottles of Phencypink-T cough syrup from Idika
Life Science Ltd., Lucknow, but he sold entire stock to 65 drugs
retailers in district Jalaun though during investigation these
retailers refused to accept that they had purchased any cough
syrup from the applicant, just to save themselves. It is further
submitted that during the investigation police has falsely
implicated the applicant without checking the records of 65 retailer
to whom the applicant had sold the codeine based cough syrup.
The applicant has no criminal history. Charge sheet has been
filed, therefore there is no requirement for custodial interrogation.
4. Per contra, learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer and
submitted that there was no document to show that the applicant
had sold Phencypik-T cough syrup to any retailer, which was
purchased by the applicant from Idika Life Science Ltd., Lucknow.
He further submitted no money was transferred by any of the
retailers in the account of the applicant regarding the aforesaid
purchase and the applicant himself deposited the cash in his
account. It is further submitted that he has also paid GST for sale
but 65 retailers refused to purchase the same except few firms.

203
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
5. I have heard the submissions of learned counsel for the rival
parties and perused the record.
6. Considering the fact that the applicant has shown the record of
selling 21000 bottles of codeine based cough syrup (Phencypink-
T) to 65 drug retailers and GST was also paid by the applicant on
the sale and merely refusal of drug retailers regarding purchase of
codeine based cough syrup (Phencypink-T) without checking the
record of those 65 retailers is not sufficient to attract the provision
of NDPS Act; coupled with the fact that charge sheet has been
filed and applicant has no criminal history and keeping in view the
nature of offence, evidence, complicity of accused and taking into
account overcrowded jails and heavy pendency of criminal cases
before the trial courts as well as considering the mandate of the
judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Kapil Wadhawan vs
Central Bureau of Investigation reported in 2025 SCC Online SC
3038 as well as guideline of this Court in the case of Maya Tiwari
vs State of U.P. reported in 2024 SCC Online All 6765 regarding
grant of bail and without expressing any opinion on the merits of
the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be
enlarged on bail.
7. Let the applicant- Umesh Chandra @ Umesh Chandra
Chaturvedi involved in the aforementioned crime 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.
8. The applicant shall be released on bail on the conditions
mentioned at the tail end of this judgment.
119. Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 8466/2026 (Pankaj Sharma
Vs. State of U.P.)
1. Heard Sri Sushil Shukla, learned Senior Advocate assisted by
Sri Syed Abid Ali Naqvi and Sri Ashutosh Mishra, learned counsel

204
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
for the applicant, Sri Chandan Agarwal, learned A.G.A.-Ist for the
State and perused the record.
2. The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to
release the applicant on bail in FIR/Case Crime No.605 of 2025,
under sections 61(2), 210, 318(4), 338, 336(3) and 340(2) of BNS
and Under Section 8 C, 21 and 26 D of NDPS Act at Police
Station Behat, District Saharanpur, during the pendency of the
trial.
3. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that applicant
is the proprietor of M/s VS Pharma. As per the prosecution story,
the applicant had purchased 15,450 bottles of codeine syrup from
Cadiz Life science, who is the licensed super stockist and it is not
in dispute that the codeine syrup allegedly purchased by the
applicant, was having permitted quantity of codeine and trade
name is Lykarex-T Syrup. Though, the applicant did purchase the
bottle of Lykarex-T Syrup from Cadiz Life science but forged
document was prepared by the super distributor Cadiz Life
science just to show the false sale of the codeine syrup without
actual delivery of the same to the applicant. During investigation,
police has allegedly recovered four invoices from Aarab Medical
shop showing that he had purchased 600 bottles of codeine syrup
from the applicant. It is further submitted that applicant did not sell
any bottles to Aarab Medical (proprietor Pradeep Sharma). It is
lastly submitted that the prosecution has shown the transfer of
Rs.7.82 lakhs from Pradeep Sharma (proprietor of Aarab
Medical), to the account of the applicant which was with regard to
the sale of the property not with regard to the purchase of any
codeine syrup. It is further submitted that the applicant has no
criminal history. It is further submitted that charge sheet has been
filed in the present case, therefore, there is no requirement of
custodial interrogation. The applicant is languishing in jail since
30.12.2025. In case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the
liberty of bail and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

205
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
4. Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the prayer
for bail and submitted that apart from invoices and record of Cadiz
Life science, e-way bills also show that there was actual delivery
of codeine based cough syrup from Cadiz Life science to the
applicant’s firm which was duly corroborated by the transporter,
Gopal Bharadwaj but except the sale of 600 codeine based syrup
to the co-accused Pradeep Sharma, there is no account. It is also
submitted by the AAG that the dispatch manager, Sachin of Cadiz
Life science also stated that the consignment of 15,450 codeine
syrup was sold to the M/s VS Pharma.
5. I have heard the submissions of learned counsel for the rival
parties and perused the record.
6. Considering that fact that there is no document showing actual
delivery of 15,450 bottles of codeine based cough syrup like
Lykarex-T from Cadiz Life science to the applicant and
transferring 7.82 lakh by the proprietor of Arab Medicals of the
applicant’s firm, is not sufficient to invoke the provision of NDPS
Act as there is no other incriminating material against the
applicant; coupled with the fact that applicant has no criminal
history and charge sheet has been filed and keeping in view the
nature of offence, evidence, complicity of accused and taking into
account overcrowded jails and heavy pendency of criminal cases
before the trial courts as well as considering the mandate of the
judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Kapil Wadhawan vs
Central Bureau of Investigation reported in 2025 SCC Online SC
3038 as well as guideline of this Court in the case of Maya Tiwari
vs State of U.P. reported in 2024 SCC Online All 6765 regarding
grant of bail and without expressing any opinion on the merits of
the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be
enlarged on bail.
7. Let the applicant- Pankaj Sharma involved in the
aforementioned crime be released on bail, on his furnishing a

206
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, to the
satisfaction of the court concerned.
8. The applicant shall be released on bail on the conditions
mentioned at the tail end of this judgment.
120. Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 11375/2026 (Pappu Ram
Sharma @ Pradeep Sharma Vs. State of U.P.)
1. Heard Sri Rajendra Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the
applicant, Sri Chandan Agarwal, learned A.G.A.-Ist for the State
and perused the record.
2. The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to
release the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 0605 of 2025,
U/S-210, 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2), B.N.S & 8 (C) /21/26
(D) NDPS Act, Police Station -Behat, District - Saharanpur, during
the pendency of the trial.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that applicant
was not named in the FIR. Subsequently in the confessional
statement of the co-accused, Pankaj Sharma, name of the
applicant came up wherein he stated that he sold codeine based
cough syrup to Pradeep Sharma and thereafter, police raided the
house of the applicant and recovered four invoices showing the
purchase of 600 bottles of codeine cough syrup, Lykarex but there
was no recovery of any codeine cough syrup from the house of
the applicant. It is further submitted that applicant is not the
Pradeep Sharma but Pappu Ram Sharma, he has been falsely
implicated in the present case, though applicant is a teacher in a
private school and the alleged bills are forged documents. It is
further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history. It is
further submitted that charge sheet has been filed in the present
case, therefore, there is no requirement of custodial interrogation.
The applicant is languishing in jail since 30.01.2026. In case, he is
granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and would
cooperate in the trial proceedings.

207
BAIL No. - 418 of 2026
4. Per contra, learned AGA- 1st has vehemently opposed the
prayer for bail and submitted that there was inter bank transfer
from the wife of applicant to the account of the co-accused,
Pankaj Sharma of Rs.9.82 lakhs. Therefore, applicant is not
entitled to be released on bail.
5. I have heard the submissions of learned counsel for the rival
parties and perused the record.
6. Considering the fact that the applicant was not named in the
FIR and there is no material except the confessional statement of
co-accused Pankaj Sharma and there is no recovery of any
codeine based cough syrup from the house of the applicant, who
is working as a teacher and as per record actual name of the
applicant is Pappu Sharma , not the Pradeep Sharma, coupled
with the fact that applicant has no criminal history and charge
sheet has been filed and keeping in view the nature of offence,
evidence, complicity of accused and taking into account
overcrowded jails and heavy pendency of criminal cases before
the trial courts as well as considering the mandate of the
judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Kapil Wadhawan vs
Central Bureau of Investigation reported in 2025 SCC Online SC
3038 as well as guideline of this Court in the case of Maya Tiwari
vs State of U.P. reported in 2024 SCC Online All 6765 regarding
grant of bail and without expressing any opinion on the merits of
the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be
enlarged on bail.
7. Let the applicant- Pappu Ram Sharma @ Pradeep Sharma
involved in the aforementioned crime 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.
8. The applicant shall be released on bail on the conditions
mentioned at the tail end of this judgment.