Shivam Soni v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Allahabad HC15 Nov 2025BAIL/11056/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail granted in NDPS case (poppy straw 10.450 kg) where recovery was from vehicle, not personal search; quantity below commercial quantity; applicant in custody since 15.09.2025; criminal history explained.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Shivam Soni released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, subject to conditions (i) to (vi). ¶¶17

Shivam Soni Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11056 of 2025

¶3

Shivam Soni

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

	Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko.	Home Deptt.	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) :	Shailesh Kumar Tripathi, Ashutosh Pratap Singh	Pathak, Anju Tiwari, Umesh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s):	G.A.

¶6

Court No. - 15

¶7

HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA for the State.

¶9

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No.299 of 2025 under Section 8/15/29/60 NDPS Act, Police Station Jaidpur, District Barabanki.

¶10

In the prosecution case, it is alleged that, on the basis of information received from a secret informer, the police party was waiting near Rizwan Dharam Kanta for vehicles to pass by. It is stated that a white-coloured Kia Seltos car was intercepted, from which 10.450 kg of poppy straw is alleged to have been recovered.

¶11

The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that there is no compliance with Section 52-A of the N.D.P.S. Act. It is contended that the recovery is not from the applicant and nothing has been recovered from the personal search of the applicant. It is further submitted that the applicant had no knowledge about the contraband. The applicant is in jail since 15.09.2025. The applicant has also explained the criminal history of six cases in paragraph 13 of the bail application.

¶12

BAIL No. 11056 of 2025

¶13

¶14

It is also submitted that there is no likelihood of the applicant absconding or tampering with the prosecution witnesses. It is assured that in case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty so granted.

¶15

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶16

On due consideration to the facts that the recovered quantity of the contraband is below the commercial quantity; the applicant has explained her criminal history in the bail application; and the applicant is languishing in jail since 15.09.2025, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail to the applicant.

¶17

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶18

Let the applicant Shivam Soni involved in the aforesaid case crime number 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 with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶19

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶20

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶21

(iii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶22

(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶23

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each

¶24

BAIL No. 11056 of 2025

¶25

¶26

date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶27

(vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. (now Section 84 BNSS) is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A IPC (now Section 209 of BNS).

¶28

It is clarified that the observations made in this order are confined to the present bail application and shall have no bearing on the merits of the trial.

¶29

November 15, 2025

¶30

Madhu D.R/P.S

¶31

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶32

Digitally signed by :- MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shivam Soni v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivam Soni v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Dinesh Singh @ Dinesh Kumar Singh @ Dinesh @ D.K Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Dilgajan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Jamal Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. and Another

Pintu and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Bilasa Devi @ Bilason @ Bimla Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

Girdhari Lal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.