# Amit Tripathi Alias Mukund v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2025) 12 ILRA 350
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-12-10
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 32689 of 2025
- **Bench:** Ashutosh Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/amit-tripathi-alias-mukund-v-state-of-u-p-52924
- **Pages:** 6

## Text

350 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

39. Therefore, the impugned orders
suffer from non-application of mind and
failure to consider governing judicial
precedents which impose a duty of
adjudication.

40. For the reasons recorded above,
this Court is satisfied that the authorities
below committed jurisdictional error in
rejecting the petitioner's objection and in
dismissing
the
appeal
without
full
adjudication on the key factual issues.

41. Consequently, the impugned order
dated 30.03.2002 passed by the Prescribed
Authority (Annexure-2) and the order dated
28.10.2002 passed by the Additional
Commissioner/Appellate
Authority
(Annexure-1) are hereby quashed.

42. The writ petition succeeds and is
allowed.
----------
(2025) 12 ILRA 350
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.12.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 32689 of
2025

Amit Tripathi Alias Mukund ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to whether having regard to the
nature and gravity of allegations u/ss. 8/20/29
of NDPS Act, 1985, the quantity of contraband
allegedly
recovered,
the
stage
of
the
proceedings, and the statutory rigour governing
grant of bail in NDPS offences, the applicant had
made out a case for enlargement on bail during
the pendency of trial u/s 483 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, despite the
rejection of his bail application by the Court
below.

Headnotes
Narcotic
Drugs
And
Psychotropic
Substances, Act, 1985 - ss. 8, 20, 29 -
NDPS (seizure, storage, sampling and
disposal) Rules, 2022 - R. 10 - The
applicant
was
arrested
for
offences
punishable u/ss. 8/20/29 of the NDPS
Act, 1985, pursuant to a raid conducted on
26.03.2025
on
the
basis
of
prior
information regarding storage of illegal
ganja at certain premises, during which a
total of approximately 1300 kilograms of
contraband ganja was allegedly recovered
from three vehicles and a room within the
said
premises
-
The
applicant
was
apprehended from one of the vehicles,
including a vehicle registered in his
name, and was remanded to judicial
custody,
following
which
his
bail
application was rejected by the learned
Special Judge (NDPS Act), prompting him
to approach the High Court seeking
regular bail on the grounds of false
implication, alleged non-compliance of
mandatory provisions of ss. 42, 50, 52A
of NDPS Act, absence of independent
witnesses, and procedural irregularities
in sampling and seizure - The State
opposed the prayer for bail by contending
that the recovery was of commercial
quantity, the investigation was complete,
the charge-sheet had been filed, and
prima
facie
material
disclosed
the
applicant's involvement in the offence.
Held: From the perusal of the evidences,
collected during investigation so far, prima facie,
the involvement of the accused in the instant
case cannot be ruled out - No reason is found to
falsely
implicate
the
applicant/accused
-
Therefore, there is no good ground to release
the applicant/accused on bail at this stage - All
the contentions raised by the learned counsel
for the applicant pertain to the merits of the
case and the same cannot be considered while
considering application for grant of bail -
Accordingly, the bail application rejected.
[Paras 8, 9] (E-13)
12 All. Amit Tripathi Alias Mukund Vs. State of U.P.
351
Case Law Cited
Amani Fidel Chris v. Narcotics Control Bureau,
2020 SCC OnLine Del 2080; Sakeer K. v.
State of Kerala and another, Bail Application
No. 1253 of 2024, decided on 25.04.2024;
Union of India v. Bal Mukund, 2009 (12) SCC
161; Chinku Gupta v. State of U.P., Jail Appeal
No. 2811 of 2016, decided on 24.8.2018;
 Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kasif, Criminal
Appeal No. 5544 of 2024 (Special Leave
Petition (Crl.) No. 12120 of 2024), decided
on 20.12.2024; Bharat Ambale v. State of
Chattisgarh, 2025 INSC 78 - referred to.

List of Acts
Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances,
Act, 1985; NDPS (seizure, storage, sampling and
disposal) Rules, 2022

List of Keywords
Bail
application;
Enlargement
on
bail;
Contraband ganja; Commercial quantity; Ulterior
motives;
Raid;
Recovery;
Seizure;
Apprehension; Judicial custody; Charge-sheet;
Investigation; Prima facie involvement; Noncompliance of mandatory provisions; Procedural
irregularity;
False
implication;
Criminal
antecedents; Independent witnesses; Conscious
possession; Rejection of bail.

Case Arising From
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Criminal Misc. Bail
Application No. - 32689 of 2025

From the Judgment and Order dated 23.05.2025
of the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge/Special
Judge NDPS Act, Court No. 9, Prayagraj

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Applicant:
Ajay Kumar, Diwanshu Tiwari, Mujeeb Khan,
Nitin Sharma, Zain Abbas

Adv. for the Opposite Party:
G.A.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ashutosh
Srivastava, J.)

1. Heard Shri Manish Tiwary, learned
Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Ajay
Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant,
Shri Shashank Singh, learned Brief Holder
for the State and perused the records.

2. The instant bail application under
Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 has been
filed seeking enlargement on bail in Case
Crime No. 163 of 2025, under Sections
8/20/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985, Police
Station Handia, District Prayagraj during
the pendency of the trial before the Court
below. The bail application of the applicant
before the Court below was rejected by the
learned Addl. Sessions Judge/Special Judge
NDPS Act, Court No. 9, Prayagraj vide
order dated 23.5.2025 and the applicant is
languishing in jail since 26.3.2025.

3. Shri Manish Tiwary, learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the applicant has
vehemently argued that the applicant is
entirely innocent and has been falsely
implicated in this very case crime number
for ulterior motives. On getting information
that huge quantity of illegal Ganja is
available in the house of Ghanshyam
Tripathi in village Chaura Bereda, a raid
was carried out on 26.3.2025at 12:39 hours
on the premises in question and the
applicant was apprehended from the driver
seat of a vehicle Tata-X Gold without
number plate. On checking the vehicle
Tata-X Gold, 25 sacks of Ganja contained
in 19 sacks each having 20 packets of 1
Kg., each and 06 sacks containing 32
packets of 1 Kg. each total quantity 572
Kg. Ganja was recovered from the said
vehicle registered in the name of coaccused Rohit Tripathi son of Ghanshyam
Tripathi. From another vehicle found on the
premises
i.e.
Nissa
Kicks
bearing
registration No. UP-70-FW-0553 from
which 01 sacks containing 14 packets of
Ganja each weighing 1 Kg was recovered
from the dickey, while 02 sacks containing
352 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
27 packets of 1 Kg. each Ganja total 68 Kg.
Ganja was recovered from the back seat of
the vehicle. The Nissan Kicks was found to
be registered in the name of the applicant.
Likewise, from a third vehicle found on the
premises i.e. Scoda vehicle without number
plate, 01 sacks were found from the dickey
of the vehicle containing 25 packets of 01
Kg., Ganja besides 03 sacks from the
backseat also containing 25 packets of 01
Kg. Ganja total quantity 125 Kg. were
recovered. Besides the recovery from the
vehicles, on the premises in question, 525
Kg. Ganja contained in 17 sacks (30
packets of 1Kg.) and 1 sack containing 25
packet of 01 Kg. Ganja was recovered. The
total quantity of the contraband Ganja
recovered was 1300 Kgs. The accused
persons are stated to have confessed their
crimes.

4. Shri Manish Tiwary, learned Senior
Counsel has vehemently argued that the
prosecution of the applicant and other coaccused persons is being done under the
wrong provisions of the NDPS Act and as
such, the entire prosecution is vitiated and
the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on
bail. Shri Tiwary, contends that the
applicant is being prosecuted for an offence
under Section 8/20/29 of the NDPS Act.
The FIR was lodged under Section 18/20 of
the NDPS Act. Section 18 of the NDPS Act
deals
with
the
punishment
for
contravention in relation to opium poppy
and opium. Since, in the case at hand
neither opium poppy and opium was
involved, the applicant and other coaccused persons were wrongly being
prosecuted. Shri Tiwary submits that the
prosecution only on 26.4.2025 while
recording the CD No. 12 converted sections
18/20 of the NDPS Act to Section 8/20/29
of the NDPS Act and sought remand of the
accused in the converted sections. It is next
contended that there is no independent
witnesses of the alleged recovery and arrest
which establishes the falsity of the
prosecution
case.
The
mandatory
provisions of Sections 42, 50, 52A of the
NDPS Act have not been followed. It is
argued that 50 sacks containing Ganja were
recovered from the premises in question
and merely two samples were taken from
each sacks and sent for chemical analysis.
It is also argued that till date the FSL report
has not been received to establish whether
the recovered material was in fact Ganja.
Much emphasis has been placed upon the
Rule 10 of the NDPS (seizure, storage,
sampling and disposal) Rules, 2022 which
deals with drawing of samples to contend
that clear violations of the Section 52A and
the Rules, 2022 have been made rendering
the prosecution vitiated. It has also been
argued that the alleged recovery of the
contraband Ganja is from the ancestral
house in which approx 25-30 families
reside. The raid was carried out at approx
4:45 AM which is a time when ordinarily
every every person is expected to be
present at their respective resides. Despite
the raid having been conducted at such an
early hour, the co-accused persons who
were residing in the same house were not
arrested, which creates doubt about the
place and manner of arrest of the applicant
which according to him has been effected
from a car at Jhunsi and not from Handia as
alleged by the prosecution. It is also argued
that the applicant was subjected to unlawful
and unwarranted physical assault by the
Police due to which, he sustained injuries.
The confiscated vehicles have since been
released finding prima facie case in favour
of the applicant. The co-accused persons,
namely, Manju Mishra, Mohit Tripathi,
Rohit
Tripathi,
Govind
Mishra
and
Ghanshyam Tripathi have been granted
stay of arrest. Reliance has been placed
12 All. Amit Tripathi Alias Mukund Vs. State of U.P.
353
upon the decision reported in 2020 SCC
Online Del 2080, decision dated 25.4.2024
by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam
in Bail Application No. 1253 of 2024
(Sakeer K. Versus State of Kerala and
another); decision of Apex Court reported
in 2009 (12) SCC 161 as also the decision
of this Court dated 24.8.2018 rendered in
Jail Appeal No. 2811 of 2016 (Chinku
Gupta versus State of U.P.) to buttress the
submissions that statutory provisions must
be scrupulously complied with to sustain
prosecution under the NDPS Act. It is also
argued that there is no credible evidence
against the applicant to establish the
complicity in the commission of the alleged
offence. The recovery is a planted one. The
applicant has no criminal antecedents and
undertakes to cooperate in the trial and
shall not misuse the liberty of bail. Hence,
bail is prayed for.

5. Per contra, Shri Shashank Singh,
learned Brief Holder appearing for the
State-respondent has vehemently opposed
the bail plea by submitting that the
applicant deserves no indulgence by this
Court and is not liable to be released on
bail inasmuch as in the raid conducted 1300
Kg. of
contraband
Ganja
has
been
recovered from 03 vehicles and one room
of the premises being the house of the
accused persons. Samples were collected
and sent for FSL examination and has been
found to be Ganja. Charge sheet has been
filed on 21.7.2025. The applicant if
released on bail shall not cooperate in the
trial and most likely influence the trial.
Reliance has been placed upon the decision
of the Apex Court rendered in the case of
Bharat
Aambale
versus
State
of
Chattisgarj, Union of India versus Ajai
Kumar Singh to submit that the applicant
is not entitled to be released on bail.

6. With regard to non compliance of
mandatory provisions of search and seizure
of narcotics substance as per the provisions
of the NDPS Act is concerned, learned
Brief Holder submits that the Apex Court
in Criminal Appeal No. 5544 of 2024
(Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 12120
of 2024) Narcotics Control Bureau
versus Kasif, decided on 20.12.2024 has
held that sub-section (2) of Section 52A
lays down the procedure as contemplated in
sub-section (1) thereof, and any lapse or
delayed compliance thereof would be
merely a procedural irregularity which
would neither entitle the accused to be
released on bail nor would vitiate the trial
on that ground alone.

7. The Apex Court recently in the case
of Bharat Ambale versus State of
Chattisgarh, reported in [2025 INSC 78]
while dealing with the plea that conviction
stood
vitiated
on
account
of
non
compliance of Section 52A of the NDPS
Act in Para 50 of its judgment has held as
under:-

"50.We
summarize
our
final
conclusion as under: -

(I) Although Section 52A is
primarily for the disposal and destruction
of seized contraband in a safe manner yet it
extends beyond the immediate context of
drug disposal, as it serves a broader
purpose of also introducing procedural
safeguards in the treatment of narcotics
substance after seizure inasmuch as it
provides for the preparation of inventories,
taking of photographs of the seized
substances and drawing samples therefrom
in the presence and with the certification of
a magistrate. Mere drawing of samples in
presence of a gazetted officer would not
constitute sufficient compliance of the
354 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
mandate under Section 52A sub-section (2)
of the NDPS Act.

(II) Although, there is no mandate
that the drawing of samples from the seized
substance must take place at the time of
seizure as held in Mohanlal (supra), yet we
are of the opinion that the process of
inventorying, photographing and drawing
samples of the seized substance shall as far
as possible, take place in the presence of
the accused, though the same may not be
done at the very spot of seizure.

(III) Any inventory, photographs
or samples of seized substance prepared in
substantial compliance of the procedure
prescribed under Section 52A of the NDPS
Act and the Rules / Standing Order(s)
thereunder would have to be mandatorily
treated as primary evidence as per Section
52A sub-section (4) of the NDPS Act,
irrespective of whether the substance in
original is actually produced before the
court or not. (IV) The procedure prescribed
by the Standing Order(s) / Rules in terms of
Section 52A of the NDPS Act is only
intended to guide the officers and to see
that a fair procedure is adopted by the
officer in-charge of the investigation, and
as such what is required is substantial
compliance of the procedure laid therein.

(V) Mere non-compliance of the
procedure under Section 52A or the
Standing Order(s) / Rules thereunder will
not be fatal to the trial unless there are
discrepancies in the physical evidence
rendering the prosecution's case doubtful,
which may not have been there had such
compliance been done. Courts should take
a holistic and cumulative view of the
discrepancies that may exist in the evidence
adduced by the prosecution and appreciate
the same more carefully keeping in mind
the procedural lapses.

(VI) If the other material on
record adduced by the prosecution, oral or
documentary
inspires
confidence
and
satisfies the court as regards the recovery
as-well as conscious possession of the
contraband from the accused persons, then
even in such cases, the courts can without
hesitation proceed to hold the accused
guilty notwithstanding any procedural
defect in terms of Section 52A of the NDPS
Act.

(VII) Non-compliance or delayed
compliance of the said provision or rules
thereunder may lead the court to drawing
an
adverse
inference
against
the
prosecution, however no hard and fast rule
can be laid down as to when such inference
may be drawn, and it would all depend on
the peculiar facts and circumstances of
each case.

(VIII) Where there has been lapse
on the part of the police in either following
the procedure laid down in Section 52A of
the NDPS Act or the prosecution in proving
the same, it will not be appropriate for the
court to resort to the statutory presumption
of commission of an offence from the
possession of illicit material under Section
54 of the NDPS Act, unless the court is
otherwise satisfied as regards the seizure
or recovery of such material from the
accused persons from the other material on
record.

(IX) The initial burden will lie on
the accused to first lay the foundational
facts to show that there was noncompliance of Section 52A, either by
leading evidence of its own or by relying
upon the evidence of the prosecution, and
the standard required would only be
preponderance of probabilities.

(X) Once the foundational facts
laid indicate non-compliance of Section
52A of the NDPS Act, the onus would
thereafter be on the prosecution to prove by
cogent evidence that either (i) there was
substantial compliance with the mandate of
12 All. Manoj Kumar Niranjan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
355
Section 52A of the NDPS Act OR (ii) satisfy
the court that such non-compliance does
not affect its case against the accused, and
the standard of proof required would be
beyond a reasonable doubt."

8. In the light of the facts and
circumstances of the present case, it would
be inappropriate to discuss the evidence in
depth at this stage because it is likely to
influence the trial of the accused. But, from
the perusal of the evidences, collected
during investigation so far, prima facie, the
involvement of the accused in the present
case cannot be ruled out. No reason is
found
to
falsely
implicate
the
applicant/accused. Therefore, there is no
good ground to release the applicantaccused on bail at this stage. All the
contentions raised by the learned counsel
for the applicant pertain to the merits of the
case and the same cannot be considered
while considering application for grant of
bail. This court is unable to form an
opinion at this stage that the accused has
not committed an offence.

9.
In
the
ultimate
conclusion,
considering the facts and circumstances of
the case, gravity of the offence, severity of
punishment, in my opinion, no case for bail
is
made
out.
Accordingly,
the
bail
application is hereby rejected.

10. It is clarified that the observations
made regarding the bail application is
limited to the decision of the bail
application and any observations made
herein shall not effect the trial of the case.
----------
(2025) 12 ILRA 355
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.12.2025

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.
THE HON'BLE ACHAL SACHDEV, J.

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 20055 of 2025

Manoj Kumar Niranjan ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to whether in exercise of its
extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226
of Constitution (read with s. 528 BNSS / s. 482
Cr.P.C.), the High Court could issue a writ of
mandamus directing the investigating authorities
to specifically consider and incorporate the
documents and evidence produced by the
petitioner during the course of investigation in a
disproportionate assets case u/s 13(1)(b) read
with s.13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988, and conclude the investigation within a
time-bound framework, on the ground of
alleged
non-consideration
of
exculpatory
material, violation of paragraph 107 of U.P.
Police Regulations, breach of Explanation-I to
Section 13(1) of Act, infringement of principles
of natural justice, and denial of petitioner's
fundamental right to speedy justice under
Article 21 of Constitution.

Headnotes
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - ss.
13(1) (b), 13(2) - Constitution of India,
1950 - Article 226 - Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - s. 528 -The
petitioner,
presently
serving
as
an
Executive Engineer in the Uttar Pradesh
Jal
Nigam,
challenged
the
ongoing
investigation initiated against him under
provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act,
registered by Vigilance Establishment,
Bareilly Sector - An Open Vigilance Inquiry
had earlier been instituted on 08.12.2020
to examine allegations of possession of
disproportionate assets during the check
period from 01.01.2012 to 30.06.2017 -
Upon conclusion of inquiry, a report was
submitted recommending registration of a
case, after that sanction was granted on
16.12.2022 and impugned FIR was lodged
on 18.03.2023 alleging excess income to
the tune of ₹14,37,427/- from unknown