# Tej Pratap Singh @ Ashish Chauhan v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2025) 7 ILRA 221
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-07-10
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 10553 of 2025
- **Bench:** Sanjay Kumar Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/tej-pratap-singh-ashish-chauhan-v-state-of-u-p-54616
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

of NDPS Act, 1985, can be held entitled to bail
despite recovery of commercial quantity of
contraband; whether alleged recovery was
effected in due compliance with mandatory
provisions of Sections 50 and 57 of Act; whether
plea of false implication and absence of
independent public witnesses is sufficient to cast
doubt upon prosecution version at stage of bail.

Head Notes
Narcotic
Drugs
and
Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 - ss. 8/20, 37, 54 -
As per prosecution case, on 03.02.2025,
during
patrolling,
informant/Station
House Officer, along with other police
personnel, intercepted Eicher Truck -
Driver and two others attempted to flee
but were apprehended and identified as
Ranjeet
Singh,
Sonu
Chauhan,
and
applicant
-
Upon
interrogation,
they
disclosed that truck contained Ganja -
After being informed of their legal rights
u/s 50 of N.D.P.S Act, they consented to
search
before
Gazetted
Officer,
accordingly consent letter was prepared,
whereupon Circle Officer arrived and
supervised search - From cabin of truck,
five plastic bags containing 112.360 kg of
Ganja recovered - Contraband was duly
weighed, sampled, sealed on spot, as no
public
witnesses
came
forward
-
Applicant,
owner
of
truck,
seeks
enlargement on bail under N.D.P.S Act.

Held: Considering the quantity of recovered
Ganja, Section 20(ii)(C) of N.D.P.S. Act is
applicable, hence alleged offence is punishable
with rigorous imprisonment for a term which
shall not be less than 10 years but which may
extend to 20 years - In the present case, as
recovery of 112.360 kg of Ganja was made from
truck and not from accused persons, Section 50
222 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of N.D.P.S Act is not attracted - Nevertheless,
accused were duly informed of their legal rights
and they consented to search before Gazetted
Officer, pursuant to which Circle Officer who was
Gazetted Officer, supervised proceedings -
Accordingly, there is no violation of Section 50,
and no material exists to indicate any breach of
Section 57 of N.D.P.S Act - No material is on
record to indicate any prior enmity of applicant
with concerned police personnel - Huge quantity
of Ganja cannot be planted - On interrogation,
apprehended persons disclosed modus operandi
adopted by them in illicit trafficking of recovered
Ganja - Recovery of Ganja was videographed
and photographed, and recordings uploaded on
eEvidence App as per recovery memo - Prima
facie, Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of N.D.P.S. Act is not
attracted, accordingly, bail application lacks
merit, dismissed. [Paras 6.4, 6.7, 6.8, 6.13,
6.14, 7, 8 ] (E-13)

Case Law Cited
Dehal Singh v. State of Himanchal Pradesh,
2011 (72) ACC 661; State by the Inspector of
Police v. B. Ramu, 2024 SCC OnLine SC4073;
- referred to

List of Acts
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
Act, 1985

List of Keywords
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
Act;
Conscious
possession;
Constructive
possession; Presumption shall also be drawn
against accused; Illicit trafficking; Organized
crime; Modus operandi; False implication;
Stereotype
defence;
Official
duties;
Huge
recovery of contraband; Want of independent
public witnesses; Prosecution case shall not be
vitiated; Recovery memo; Commercial quantity;
Mandatory provisions have been complied;
Consent letter was prepared; Disclosed that
they were carrying Ganja; Recovered from cabin
of
truck;
Videography
and
photography;
Uploaded on e-Evidence App; Search by
Gazetted Officer or Magistrate; Recovery shown
from public place; No criminal history; Rigorous
imprisonment; Police personnel; Official duties.

Case Arising From
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Criminal Misc Bail
Application No. - 10553 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order in Case Crime
No. 08 of 2025, Police Station Basrehar, District
Etawah

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Applicant:
Dharmendra Kumar Singh, Raj Kumar Mishra

Adv. for the Opposite Party:
G.A.

## Text

7 All. Tej Pratap Singh @ Ashish Chauhan Vs. Vs. State of U.P.
221

III.
Applicant
shall
appear
before the Court concerned as and when
the matter is taken up for hearing.

IV. Applicant shall not indulge
in any criminal activity and shall not
communicate with or come in contact
with any of the prosecution witnesses,
the victim or any member of the victim's
family or tamper with the evidence of
the case.

V. Applicant shall provide all
his
mobile
numbers
to
the
I.O.
concerned which shall be kept in
working condition at all times and shall
not switch off or change the mobile
number without prior intimation to the
I.O. concerned.

56. It is clarified that the observations
made herein are prima facie in nature only
for the purposes of deciding the present
application for grant of anticipatory bail
and thus, need not be construed as an
expression on merits of the matter.

57. Copy of the present order be sent
to
the
concerned
IO
for
necessary
information and compliance thereof.
----------
(2025) 7 ILRA 221
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.07.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR SINGH, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 10553 of
2025

Tej Pratap Singh @ Ashish Chauhan
 ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party
Counsel for the Applicant:
Dharmendra Kumar Singh, Raj Kumar
Mishra

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
G.A

Issue for Consideration
Issues for consideration are whether applicant,
in view of statutory provisions contained u/s 37
of NDPS Act, 1985, can be held entitled to bail
despite recovery of commercial quantity of
contraband; whether alleged recovery was
effected in due compliance with mandatory
provisions of Sections 50 and 57 of Act; whether
plea of false implication and absence of
independent public witnesses is sufficient to cast
doubt upon prosecution version at stage of bail.

Head Notes
Narcotic
Drugs
and
Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 - ss. 8/20, 37, 54 -
As per prosecution case, on 03.02.2025,
during
patrolling,
informant/Station
House Officer, along with other police
personnel, intercepted Eicher Truck -
Driver and two others attempted to flee
but were apprehended and identified as
Ranjeet
Singh,
Sonu
Chauhan,
and
applicant
-
Upon
interrogation,
they
disclosed that truck contained Ganja -
After being informed of their legal rights
u/s 50 of N.D.P.S Act, they consented to
search
before
Gazetted
Officer,
accordingly consent letter was prepared,
whereupon Circle Officer arrived and
supervised search - From cabin of truck,
five plastic bags containing 112.360 kg of
Ganja recovered - Contraband was duly
weighed, sampled, sealed on spot, as no
public
witnesses
came
forward
-
Applicant,
owner
of
truck,
seeks
enlargement on bail under N.D.P.S Act.

Held: Considering the quantity of recovered
Ganja, Section 20(ii)(C) of N.D.P.S. Act is
applicable, hence alleged offence is punishable
with rigorous imprisonment for a term which
shall not be less than 10 years but which may
extend to 20 years - In the present case, as
recovery of 112.360 kg of Ganja was made from
truck and not from accused persons, Section 50
222 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of N.D.P.S Act is not attracted - Nevertheless,
accused were duly informed of their legal rights
and they consented to search before Gazetted
Officer, pursuant to which Circle Officer who was
Gazetted Officer, supervised proceedings -
Accordingly, there is no violation of Section 50,
and no material exists to indicate any breach of
Section 57 of N.D.P.S Act - No material is on
record to indicate any prior enmity of applicant
with concerned police personnel - Huge quantity
of Ganja cannot be planted - On interrogation,
apprehended persons disclosed modus operandi
adopted by them in illicit trafficking of recovered
Ganja - Recovery of Ganja was videographed
and photographed, and recordings uploaded on
eEvidence App as per recovery memo - Prima
facie, Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of N.D.P.S. Act is not
attracted, accordingly, bail application lacks
merit, dismissed. [Paras 6.4, 6.7, 6.8, 6.13,
6.14, 7, 8 ] (E-13)

Case Law Cited
Dehal Singh v. State of Himanchal Pradesh,
2011 (72) ACC 661; State by the Inspector of
Police v. B. Ramu, 2024 SCC OnLine SC4073;
- referred to

List of Acts
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
Act, 1985

List of Keywords
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
Act;
Conscious
possession;
Constructive
possession; Presumption shall also be drawn
against accused; Illicit trafficking; Organized
crime; Modus operandi; False implication;
Stereotype
defence;
Official
duties;
Huge
recovery of contraband; Want of independent
public witnesses; Prosecution case shall not be
vitiated; Recovery memo; Commercial quantity;
Mandatory provisions have been complied;
Consent letter was prepared; Disclosed that
they were carrying Ganja; Recovered from cabin
of
truck;
Videography
and
photography;
Uploaded on e-Evidence App; Search by
Gazetted Officer or Magistrate; Recovery shown
from public place; No criminal history; Rigorous
imprisonment; Police personnel; Official duties.

Case Arising From
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Criminal Misc Bail
Application No. - 10553 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order in Case Crime
No. 08 of 2025, Police Station Basrehar, District
Etawah

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Applicant:
Dharmendra Kumar Singh, Raj Kumar Mishra

Adv. for the Opposite Party:
G.A.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar
Singh, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
applicant as well as learned Additional
Government Advocate representing the
State.

2. By means of this bail application,
applicant-Tej Pratap Singh alias Ashish
Chauhan, who is involved in Case Crime
No. 08 of 2025, under Sections 8/20 of the
Narcotic
Drugs
and
Psychotropic
Substances Act, Police Station Basrehar,
District Etawah, is seeking enlargement on
bail during the trial.

3. As per prosecution case, in brief, on
03.02.2025 informant Samit Chaudhary,
who is Station House Officer got a first
information report lodged at 15:28 hours
against the applicant Tej Pratap Singh alias
Ashish Chauhan and two others, namely,
Ranjeet Singh and Sonu Chauhan, under
Sections 8/20 of the N.D.P.S. Act alleging
inter alia that on 03.02.2025, when he
along with S.I. Saurabh Rana, S.I. Jaswant
Singh, Head Constable Sandeep Kumar,
Head
Constable
Mohit
Kumar
and
Constables Vinod Kumar and Anoop
Kumar, was on patrolling in village
Patapur, they saw one Eicher Truck DCM
coming from Bhadramai. On indication by
the police, the driver stopped the vehicle,
two persons got down and started running
away but the police personnel apprehended
7 All. Tej Pratap Singh @ Ashish Chauhan Vs. Vs. State of U.P.
223
the driver as well as the other two persons.
On questioning, they told their names as
Ranjeet Singh, Sonu Chauhan and Tej
Pratap Singh alias Ashish Chauhan. They
disclosed that they were carrying Ganja in
the truck. Thereafter, they were informed
about their legal rights under Section 50 of
N.D.P.S. Act and were given option for
getting their search by a Gazetted Officer
or Magistrate, on which they gave their
consent for their search by the Magistrate
or Gazetted Officer. Accordingly, consent
letter was prepared and Circle Officer
Pahup Singh (Gazetted Officer) was
informed and called, who reached at the
spot. Thereafter, said Truck No. UP84 AT
3521 was searched by the police personnel
in the presence of Circle Officer Pahup
Singh. Five plastic bags were recovered
from the cabin of truck, which were kept
behind the driver seat. On opening said
bags, four packets were found in each of
four bags and six packets were found in
fifth bag, to which they told that it was
Ganja. On demanding authorization of
keeping and transportation of recovered
Ganja, they could not show the same. On
weighing the recovered Ganja, it was found
112.360 Kg. All the 22 packets of Ganja
were sealed after sampling at the spot. An
attempt was made to testify the public
witnesses but they did not come forward to
become
witness.
Videography
and
photography of said recovered Ganja were
done and the same were also uploaded on
e-Evidence App.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel
for the applicant that the applicant is being
prosecuted on account of recovery of
112.360 Kg Ganja from Truck No. UP84
AT 3521, in fact, nothing has been
recovered from the truck in question. There
is no independent witness of the said
recovery, whereas recovery has been
shown
from
the
public
place.
The
provisions of Sections 50 and 57 of
N.D.P.S. Act have not been followed by the
prosecution. Lastly it is submitted that the
applicant has been falsely implicated in this
case, who is languishing in jail since
03.02.2025 having no criminal history to
his credit. In case he is released on bail, he
will not misuse the liberty of bail. No other
point has been pressed.

5. Learned Additional Government
Advocate representing the State opposed
the prayer of bail of the applicant by
contending
that
all
the
mandatory
provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act have been
complied with. There is no illegality in
search and seizure of recovered Ganja.
Considering the huge quantity of Ganja,
bail application is liable to be rejected.

6. Having heard learned counsel for
the parties and examined the matter in its
entirety, I find that:-

6.1. Applicant is the owner of
Truck No. UP84 AT 3521 and he was
apprehended at the spot along with coaccused.

6.2. From the cabin of the truck
in question, total 112.360 Kg Ganja have
been recovered, which is much more than
commercial quantity.

6.3. Section 37 of N.D.P.S. Act is
fully attracted.

6.4. Considering the quantity of
recovered Ganja in this case, Section
20(ii)(C) of the N.D.PS. Act is applicable,
hence alleged offence is punishable with
rigorous imprisonment for a term which
shall not be less than 10 years but which
may extend to 20 years.
224 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

6.5. The Apex Court in the case
of Dehal Singh vs. State of Himanchal
Pradesh, 2011 (72) ACC 661, has again
considered
the
issue
of
"conscious
possession". In the said case, two accused
persons were travelling in a car and they
knew each other. From the windows/door
of the said car, recovery of 27 Kg and 800
gm of Charas was made, which were found
concealed between the shields and doors of
the car. The Apex Court in the said case
taking into consideration the provisions of
Sections 35 and 54 of the N.D.P.S. Act has
held that accused was not only in
possession, but conscious possession of
recovered contraband also.

6.6. Under the facts of the case,
the conscious and constructive possession
of the accused applicant over the recovered
Ganja is apparent on record. In view of
Section 54 of the N.D.P.S. Act presumption
shall also be drawn against the accused
unless and until the contrary is proved.

6.7. So far as provisions of
Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act are
concerned, it is well settled that Section 50
of N.D.P.S. Act can be invoked only in
cases where narcotic drugs or psychotropic
substances are recovered as a consequence
of body search of the accused. In the
present case, recovery of 112.360 Kg of
Ganja has been made from the truck, hence
in the present case, Section 50 of the
N.D.P.S. Act would not be attracted.
However,
the
accused
persons
were
informed about their legal rights to be
searched in presence of a Gazetted Officer
or a Magistrate, on which they gave
consent for taking search of truck by any
Magistrate/Gazetted Officer. Accordingly,
Circle Officer Pahup Singh, who was
Gazetted Officer, was called and further
procedure of search etc. was done in his
presence. Hence, there is no violation of
said provisions. So far as Section 57 of
N.D.P.S. Act is concerned, I do not find
any material on record to indicate the
violation of Section 57 of N.D.P.S. Act.

6.8. No material has been brought
on record by the applicant to show that
there was any prior ill-will or enmity of the
applicant
with
the
police
personnel
concerned.

6.9.
Illicit
trafficking
is
an
organized crime and are done adopting
different modus operandi by a group of
persons with their different roles.

6.10. So far as plea of false
implication is concerned, in my view, it is a
stereotype defence raised in every case,
where accused are found in possession of
contraband. Experience shows that such
statements are made in almost every case,
therefore, such kind of plea of false
implication without any basis is not liable
to be accepted at this stage.

6.11.
Nowadays,
totally
unconcerned people do not dare to become
witness against criminals, as they have a lot
of financial and political patronage as well
as muscle power. Public witnesses against
the criminals and drug traffickers are
always under the threat, therefore, police
personnel cannot be seen with the eye of
suspicion particularly when there is a huge
recovery of contraband and there is no prior
ill-will of police personnel with the accused
and they are discharging their official
duties.
In
recovery
memo,
proper
explanation about the want of independent
public witnesses, has been given.

6.12. It is well settled that in the
cases of huge recovery of contraband, the
7 All. Tahir Mewati Vs. State of U.P.
225
prosecution case shall not be vitiated due to
want of the public witnesses.

6.13.Huge quantity of 112.360
Kg
Ganja
cannot
be
planted.
On
interrogation, the apprehended persons
disclosed the modus operandi adopted by
them in illicit trafficking of recovered
Ganja.

6.14. As per the recovery memo,
the videography and photography of said
recovery of Ganja were done and the same
were also uploaded on e-Evidence App.

6.15. In the case of State by the
Inspector of Police Versus B. Ramu,
2024 SCC OnLine SC 4073, there was
recovery of 232.5 kg of ganja on search of
the house of the accused Nos. 1 and 2. The
third accused was indicated as being the
conspirator for procurement/supply of
ganja so recovered, who had preferred
anticipatory bail under Section 438 of
Cr.P.C., which was allowed by the High
Court, thereafter, State of Tamil Nadu
preferred a Special Leave Petition (Cri.)
against the order of the High Court before
Hon'ble the Apex Court, which has been
allowed vide order dated 12.02.2024 setting
aside the order of the High Court making
following observations in Paragraph Nos.
11 and 12:-

"11. In case of recovery of such a
huge quantity of narcotic substance, the
Courts should be slow in granting even
regular bail to the accused what to talk of
anticipatory bail more so when the accused
is
alleged
to
be
having
criminal
antecedents.

12. For entertaining a prayer for
bail in a case involving recovery of
commercial quantity of narcotic drug or
psychotropic substance, the Court would
have to mandatorily record the satisfaction
in terms of the rider contained in Section
37 of the NDPS Act."

7. Considering the facts of the case as
noted above, this Court finds that primafacie Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the N.D.P.S.
Act does not stands satisfied.

8. In view of the above, the instant bail
application lacks merit and is accordingly
dismissed.
----------
(2025) 7 ILRA 225
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.07.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR SINGH, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 25687 of
2025

Tahir Mewati ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Rajesh Chandra Jaiswal, Sachchida Nand
Ojha, Vikas Srivastava

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
G.A

Issue for consideration
 Whether the applicant should be granted bail or
not?

Headnotes
A.
Criminal
Law
-
Bharatiya
Nyaya
Sanhita,
2023:
Sections
152,
352,
197(1)(c), 353(1)(c) - It is beyond the
shadow of doubt that social media is a
global platform for exchange of thoughts,
opinions and ideas. The internet and social
media has become an important tool