Nakul Jain vs Central Bureau Of Narcotics on 15 April, 2026

Allahabad High Court

Nakul Jain vs Central Bureau Of Narcotics on 15 April, 2026

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC:81726
 

 
 Judgment Reserved : 29.01.2026
 
Judgment Delivered : 15.04.2026
 
 
 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 
 
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33239 of 2025   
 
   Nakul Jain    
 
  .....Applicant(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   Central Bureau Of Narcotics    
 
  .....Opposite Party(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Applicant(s)   
 
:   
 
Mayank Chandra, Surya Pratap Singh, Suyash Mehrotra   
 
  
 
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)   
 
:   
 
Krishna Agarawal   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 68
 
   
 
 HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.     

Heard Sri Manish Tiwary, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Suyash Mehrotra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Krishna Agarwal, learned counsel for the CBN and perused the records.

The instant bail application under Section 483 of the BNSS has been filed seeking the enlargement on bail of the applicant, Nakul Jain, in Case Crime No. 9 of 2024, under Sections 8/21/22 and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985, Police Station Civil Lines, District Rampur, during the pendency of the trial before the court below. The bail application of the applicant before the court below was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, Special Judge (Drugs & Cosmetics Act and NDPS Act) Rampur vide order dated 18.06.2025 and the applicant has been languishing in jail since 17.08.2024.

SPONSORED

Sri Manish Tiwary, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant and while pressing the bail plea vehemently submits that the applicant is entirely innocent and has been falsely implicated in this very case crime number for ulterior motives. The applicant is being prosecuted under the aforementioned sections on the strength of a complaint lodged under Sections 21, 22, 29 of the NDPS Act initiated with the allegation that the applicant as a Proprietor of M/s Khandelwal Surgical and Medicare, Roshan Bag, Rampur is indulging in illegal business of narcotics and psychotropic medicines. Search and Seizure operation was undertaken by the preventive party at the shop of the applicant situate at 16, MIG Roshan Bagh, Rampur the residence of the applicant. Large quantity of NDPS Drugs and Psychotropic substance was found and a detailed list was prepared and enclosed as Annexure-A, B, C & D to the complaint. The applicant could not produce any drugs license on the spot. No Drug License could be produced for the ground floor and first floor of house No. 18, MIG, Roshan Bagh where the narcotics and psychotropic medicines were stocked. The medicines seized from the applicant were found to be illegal. There was no 20-G license for Ketamine found at the said place. The applicant could not provide proper bills of purchase/sale of the said narcotics medicines. Sri Manish Tiwary inviting attention of this Court to the provisions of Sections 8, 21, 22 and 29 of the NDPS Act and to the allegations made in the FIR submits that the allegations relate to the violation of the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1940 and no prosecution can be lodged against the applicant under the NDPS Act. Reliance is placed upon a decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated 15.10.2025 rendered in the case of Ashok Kumar (Through Brother) Rakesh Kumar Pawar Vs. Union of India and Others as well as decisions of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana reported in 1997 SCC online P&H 374, 1997 SCC online P&H 1232 and 1996 SCC online P&H 496.

Sri Manish Tiwary, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant has vehemently argued that the allegations levied in the seizure memo and facts stated therein are entirely false and hold no iota of truth in them and in fact no such alleged recovery was ever made. The personal search of the applicant alleged to have been made also discloses that no incriminating material has been recovered. The personal search of the applicant was in fact conducted at Kotwali Robertsganj, which casts serious clouds of suspicion over the entire prosecution story. It has also been argued that the complicity of the applicant is sought to be established on the basis of statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act which being in the nature of confessional statements are not admissible in evidence and cannot be relied upon to implicate the applicant. Reliance has been placed upon the decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Toofan Singh reported in AIR 2020 SC 5592.

It has further been argued that at the time of arrest of the applicant the applicant was not apprised of the reasons of his arrest or the grounds of arrest as is evident from the arrest memo which has been brought on record as Annexure No. 8 to the affidavit filed in support of the bail application. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Apex Court in Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and Another, reported in 2025(5) SCC 799. It is also argued that the alleged seizure was made on 17.08.2024, the samples were drawn only on 28.08.2024 and actual list carried out on 30.08.2024 as is evident from the Test Memo (Annexure No. 12) itself which itself creates serious doubts on the test report.

It is next argued that the applicant is languishing in jail since 17.08.2024. He has no criminal antecedents except the present case. The applicant was summoned on 19.02.2025 and till date charges have not been framed. The trial is producing at a snail’s pace and is not likely to be concluded in the near future. The prosecution of the applicant is entirely based on the statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, 1985 and the detention of the applicant in such circumstances amounts to pre-trial punishment. Hence bail has been prayed for.

Per contra, Sri Krishna Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the CBN vehemently opposed the bail plea of the applicant on the ground that large quantity of Narcotics and Psychotropic medicines have been seized and recovered from the applicant for which the applicant could not produce relevant license. The applicant is guilty of indulging in illegal sales of such narcotic drugs and psychotropic medicines in the name of his Firm which is prohibited under the NDPS Act. Apart from the statements of various persons there is sufficient documentary and circumstantial evidence collected to indicate the guilty of the applicant. There is no substance in the submission of the counsel for the applicant that only a violation of the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act is made out against the applicant and no offence is made out against him under the NDPS Act. There is no indication of any misdoing with respect to the goods seized and the samples sent for verification. Conditions of granting bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is not made out in the case of the applicant and the bail application is liable to be rejected outright.

I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have perused the records.

As far as the argument of Sri Manish Tiwary, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant that the applicant is being prosecuted for an offence under Sections 8/21/22 and 29 of the NDPS Act whereas as per the allegations set out against the applicant in the FIR merely discloses an offence under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and as such the entire prosecution is vitiated and the applicant is liable to be released on bail on that score is concerned the said issue urged by Sri Manish Tiwary while pressing the bail plea is no longer res-integra. The Apex Court in Union of India Vs. Sanjeev Vs. Deshpande reported in 2014(13) SCC 1, clearly held that dealing in narcotics drugs and psychotropic substance is permissible only if it is for medical or scientific purposes and even the said usage for medical and scientific purposes is not restriction free and is subject to rules under the NDPS Act. There Lordships of the Apex Court while dealing with the provisions of the NDPS Act as also the Drugs and Cosmetics Act concluded that application of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 was not barred and the provisions of the NDPS Act or the Rules framed thereunder would operate in addition to the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The legal position was further clarified by the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Rakesh Kumar reported in 2019(2) SCC 466 by highlighting the objectives of the two legislation i.e. the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 an the NDPS Act, 1985. The Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the NDPS Act, 1985. The Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 is mainly intended to curtail the menace of adulteration and sale of spurious and substandard drugs while the NDPS Act is a special law enacted with the object to control and regulate the operations relating to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances which are used for intoxication or for getting a statement effect. It was clarified by the Apex Court that the NDPS Act should not be read in exclusion to the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. It is the prerogative of the State to prosecute the offender in accordance with law. Very recently the Apex Court in Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Vs. Raj Kumar Arora & others, reported in 2025 Supreme (SC) 644 has reiterated the above position of law and held that dealing with psychotropic substance listed in the NDPS Act constituted an offence under Section 8(c) of the NDPS Act regardless of their absence in Schedule I of the NDPS Rules and that the law appealed retrospectively.

In view of the above, the Court finds no substance in the submission of Sri Manish Tiwary and the same is rejected.

Now coming to the next submission that the applicant was not stated the reasons for his arrest or the grounds of his arrest and as such the arrest of the applicant being patently illegal is liable to be forthwith released on bail. A perusal of the arrest memo of the applicant brought on record as Annexure No. 8 to the affidavit filed in support of the bail application reads as under:-

“Consequent upon the recovery and seizure of various NDPS medicines from possession of Shri Nakul Jain on 17-08-2024 and also based on preliminary investigations including statement of Shri Nakul Jain dated 27-08-2024 u/s 67 of NDPS Act 1985, it transpires that Shri Nakul Jain age about 38 years S/o Shri Shikhar Chand Jain R/o MIG-18 Roshan Bagh Rampur UP has committed an offence punishable under Section 16/17/18/19/20/21/22/23/24/25/26/27/27A/28/ 29/30/31 (Strike out if not applicable to case) read with Section 8 of NDPS Act 1985.

Accordingly, Shri Nakul Jain S/o Shikhar Chand Jain has been placed under arrest at about 21:30 hrs on 27-08-2024. He has been explained the ground of his arrest.”

The arrest memo bears the signature of the applicant and information of his arrest has been communicated to his wife on phone call. Thus there is substantial compliance of the requirement under the law. The Court is not impressed with the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant in this regard and the submission is rejected.

Now coming to the submission of Sri Manish Tiwary, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant that the applicant is incarcerated in jail since 17.08.2024. The charge sheet against the applicant has been filed as far back as on 19.02.2025 as is evident from the order sheet of the trial proceedings brought on record as Annexure No. 14 to the bail application. The Court concerned has also taken cognizance of the same. Thereafter the case was being fixed for framing of charges. The first date fixed for framing of charge is borne out from the order sheet was 04.03.2025. A year has passed by but the charges against the applicant has yet not been framed. Right to speedy trial to an under-trial is a facet enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Apex Court in Hussainara Khatoon Vs. State of Bihar, 1980(1) SCC 81 observed that prolonged incarceration of the under-trails with no progress in the trial is a denial of human rights and withholding of basic freedom. Speedy trail is one of the essence of criminal justice and there can be no doubt that delay in trial by itself constitute denial of justice. Speedy trial though not specifically enumerated as a fundamental right is implicit in the broad sweep and content of Article 21 of the Constitution.

Then again in Union of India Vs. K. A. Najeeb, 2021 (3) SCC 713 in Para 15 of the judgment observed as under:-

“15.This Court has clarified in numerous judgments that the liberty guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution would cover within its protective ambit not only due procedure and fairness but also access to justice and a speedy trial. In Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee Representing Undertrial Prisoners v. Union of India, it was held that undertrials cannot indefinitely be detained pending trial. Ideally, no person ought to suffer adverse consequences of his acts unless the same is established before a neutral arbiter. However, owing to the practicalities of real life where to secure an effective trial and to ameliorate the risk to society in case a potential criminal is left at large pending trial, Courts are tasked with deciding whether an individual ought to be released pending trial or not. Once it is obvious that a timely trial would not be possible and the accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period of time, Courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge them on bail.”

In the case at hand the Court finds that the applicant is languishing in jail since 17.08.2024. The applicant has no criminal antecedents except the present case. He is not an habitual offender. The charge sheet against the applicant was filed on 19.02.2025 and cognizance of the same has also been taken by the Court concerned. The applicant is appearing before the Court concerned on each and every date but till date the charges against the applicant has yet not been framed and in such view of the matter the trial against the applicant has yet not commenced even after nearly 2 years of the incident. This appears to be a very sorted state of affairs. The trial of the applicant is not likely to be concluded in the near future as it has still not commenced. In the opinion of the Court the further detention of the applicant in jail tantamount to pre-trial punishment. The applicant is not a flight risk. The rigorous of Section 37 of the NDPS Act shall not apply to the case of the applicant. Considering the period of incarceration already undergone at the pre-trial stage, the trial having still not commenced the charge sheet having been filed and investigation complete the applicant not being a flight risk, this Court is inclined to release the applicant on bail.

Considering all those facts and circumstances, the nature of accusations, severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness and prima-facie case, but without commenting on merit of case, a case for bail is made out. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

Let the accused-applicant, Nakul Jain, involved in above mentioned case crime number be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each, in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:

1. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence.

2. The applicant will not indulge in any criminal activity.

3. The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and co-operate in the trial.

4. The applicant will appear regularly on each and every date fixed by the trial court, unless his personal appearance is exempted through counsel by the court concerned.

In the event of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the court below will be at liberty to proceed to cancel his bail.

(Ashutosh Srivastava,J.)

April 15, 2026

pks