Allowed

Shubham Yadav v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC25 Apr 2025BAIL/1928/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application under Sections 8/20 NDPS Act and BNS provisions over alleged recovery of 28 kg illicit ganja from a vehicle. Court noted six months' incarceration and reliance on Supreme Court guidance in Data Ram Singh, and granted bail with standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties, subject to attendance and conduct conditions.

Shubham Yadav vs State of U.P. — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:90646

¶2

Court No. - 88

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1928 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Shubham Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Diwas Verma,G.S. Chauhan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.

¶6

Counter affidavit, filed today on behalf of the applicant is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A for the State of U.P. and perused the record.

¶8

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.454 of 2024, under Section 8/20 of Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, and Section 318, 338, 336, 340 of BNS, Police Station- Mahrauni, District Lalitpur with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the case. As per prosecution version, police team headed by S.I. Manoj Kumar on the basis of sacret information arrested the accused applicant -Shubham Yadav and co-accused Ankit Dwivedi on 22.12.2024 at around 09:25 hours on charge of carrying illicit ganga in a four wheeler vehicle which was recovered from their possession. The police team on disclosure of accused applicant recovered 28 kg. Illicit ganja from the diggi of the vehicle. He next submitted that accused applicant has been falsely implicated in the case and no contraband has been recovered from his possession and same has been wrongly recovered by the police with ulterior motive.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that accused applicant has been assigned criminal history of only one case registered as Case Crime No.246 of 2023, under Sections 363, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, 2012, P.S. Jakhaura, District Lalitpur , in which he has already been enlarged on bail vide order dated 29.05.2024. Copy of bail order has been annexed as Annexure No.3 to the affidavit filed in support of the bail

¶11

application. He next submitted that no public witness has been enjoined in any alleged recovery. The mandatory provisions of sampling and seizure as provided under Section 152 (A) of NDPS Act are not complied with in the present case. Except present case, no other case under NDPS Act has been registered against the applicant. Therefore, there is no probability that on release of bail, repeat the offence of tempering with the evidence. The witnesses of police personnel, the rigour of Section 19(4) of NDPS Act are not attracted in the case, although the quantity of contraband is slightly more than minimum commercial quantity.

¶12

Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that recovered ganja is from the joint possession of the accused applicant and co-accused, comprises of commercial quantity. He contends that the provisions of Section 19(4) of the Act creates a statutory embargo on release of bail.

¶13

Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties, period of incarceration of the applicant, which is more than six month, totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the large mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and in the light of observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Data Ram Singh Vs. State of U.P., reported in (2018) 2 SCC 22 without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶14

Let the applicant- Shubham Yadav, who is involved in aforementioned case 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 subject to following conditions.

¶15

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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.

¶16

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC.

¶17

(iii) 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., may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the Trial Court

¶18

shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A IPC.

¶19

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶20

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶21

Order Date :- 27.5.2025 Ashish/-

¶22

Digitally signed by :- ASHISH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shubham Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shubham Yadav v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Smt. Preeti Tandon vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Umesh Varma @ Chintu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and 2 Others

Danishta Parveen and Another vs Addl. Principal Judge 2ND, Family Court, Barabanki and Another

Arshad Jameel vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 2 Others

Nanha vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 4 Others

Rahul and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and 3 Others