Allowed¶7

Yogesh Kumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC20 Apr 2026BAIL/11244/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

NDPS bail; Section 483 BNSS 2023; Section 37 NDPS Act rigours; alleged non-compliance with Sections 50 and 52-A NDPS Act; recovery of 28.100 kg Ganja; production of contraband before Magistrate after six days; Mohan Lal 72-hour rule; weight discrepancy vis-a-vis FIR; Union of India v. Shiv Shanker Kesari (2007) 7 SCC 798; Nadeem Ahmad v. State of West Bengal 2025 INSC 993; no criminal history; custody since 18.2.2026; Police Station Magorra, District Mathura; bail allowed with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to applicant Yogesh Kumar on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount, subject to conditions (i) to (v); breach of conditions to be a ground for cancellation of bail. ¶7

Yogesh Kumar vs State of U.P. — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶7

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant Yogesh Kumar is entitled to be released on bail in Case Crime No. 49 of 2026 under Sections 8/20 NDPS Act, having regard to the restrictions under Section 37 NDPS Act. +1 more

¶13

Court's answer

Considering the totality of facts, nature and evidence on record, the provision of Section 37 NDPS Act and the law laid down in Union of India v. Shiv Shanker Kesari and Nadeem Ahmad v. State of West Bengal, the court found it a fit case for bail and allowed the bail application without expressing any opinion on the merits.

¶7

Ratio / Principle

The applicant is to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount, subject to conditions including presence before the trial court for opening of the case, framing of charge and recording of statement under Section 351 B.N.S.S., and no inducement, tampering or intimidation of prosecution witnesses.

¶21

Key takeaways

Anything said in the order is limited to the purpose of determining the bail application and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits; the trial court is absolutely free to arrive at its own independent conclusions on the evidence.obiter¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Jitendra Kumar Sinha, J.) allowed a bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed by Yogesh Kumar, accused in Case Crime No. 49 of 2026, Police Station Magorra, District Mathura, under Sections 8/20 NDPS Act, involving an alleged recovery of 28.100 kg of Ganja. The applicant contended non-compliance with Sections 50 and 52-A of the NDPS Act (absence of the gazetted police officer's signature on the recovery memo) and production of the contraband before the Magistrate for sampling six days after the incident, contrary to Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab (72-hour rule); the weight before the Magistrate was found less than the FIR weight. The State contended the statutory provisions were complied with. Considering Section 37 of the NDPS Act and the law in Union of India v. Shiv Shanker Kesari, 2007 (7) SCC 798 and Nadeem Ahmad v. State of West Bengal, 2025 INSC 993, and noting the applicant had no criminal history and was in custody since 18.2.2026, the court granted bail without expressing any opinion on merits, on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties in the like amount, imposing conditions including presence for framing of charge and statement under Section 351 B.N.S.S., and clarified that its observations were confined to the bail determination.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11244 of 2026

Yogesh Kumar

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State of U.P.

.....Opposite Party(s)

¶8

Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Sushil Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶9

Court No. - 69

¶10

HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.

¶11

Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

¶12

Heard Sri Sushil Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Manoj Gautam, learned AGA for the State-respondents and perused the record.

¶13

The present bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been filed on behalf of applicant with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 49 of 2026 under Section 8/20 NDPS Act, registered at Police Station Magorra, District Mathura during pendency of the trial.

¶14

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that 28.100 kg of Ganja is said to have been recovered from the possession of the applicant, however, mandatory provision of Sections 50 of NDPS Act has not been complied with. It is further submitted that though it has been mentioned in the FIR that the alleged recovery has been made in the presence of a gazetted police officer, however, name of the said officer has not been disclosed nor his signatures have been obtained in the recovery memo. It is further submitted that the alleged recovery was produced before the learned Magistrate for sampling after six days of the incident which is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mohan Lal vs. State of Punjab decided on 16th August, 2018 in which 72 hours have been provided for producing the recovered contraband before the learned Magistrate for taking samples. It is further submitted that mandatory provision of Sections 52-A of NDPS Act has also not been complied with and the applicant is languishing in jail since 18.2.2026 and he has no criminal history to his credit. It is also submitted that the applicant undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty, if granted. It has also been pointed out that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.

¶15

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the

¶16

BAIL No. 11244 of 2026

¶17

¶18

applicant and submits that mandatory provisions of sections 50 and 52-A of NDPS Act have been complied with.

¶19

28.100 kg of Ganja is said to have been recovered from the possession of the applicant and it is submitted that mandatory provision of section 50 of NDPS Act has not been complied with as signatures of the gazetted police officer has not been found in the recovery memo. The alleged recovered contraband has been produced before the learned Magistrate for sampling after six days of the incident which is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mohan Lal vs. State of Punjab decided on 16th August, 2018 in which 72 hours have been provided for producing the recovered contraband before the learned Magistrate for taking samples. When the recovered contraband was produced before the learned Magistrate, the weight of the same was found less than the weight as mentioned in the FIR. Applicant has no criminal history to his credit and he is languishing in jail since 18.2.2026.

¶20

Upon considering the totality of facts, nature and evidence reflected from record, taking into consideration the provision of Section 37 of the NDPS Act and in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India vs. Shiv Shanker Kesari, 2007 (7) SCC 798 and Nadeem Ahmad vs. State of West Bengal 2025 LawSuit (SC) 1134 (2025 INSC 993), without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for bail. Hence, the present bail application is ALLOWED.

¶21

Let the applicant Yogesh Kumar involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions :-

¶22

(i) 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.

¶23

(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

¶24

(iii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of B.N.S.S.

¶25

(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 the trial court.

¶26

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.

¶27

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

¶28

BAIL No. 11244 of 2026

¶29

¶30

cancellation of bail.

¶31

It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.

¶32

April 20, 2026 Madhurima

¶33

(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)

¶34

Digitally signed by :- MADHURIMA GARG High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Yogesh Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yogesh Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Vikas Patel Vs State of U.P.

Uttamdas Vs State of U.P.

Himanshu Vs State of U.P.

Yaseen Pathan @ Yaseen Ghoda vs State of U.P.

Himanshu vs State of U.P.

Shubham vs State of U.P.