Dilip Kumar Yadav Alias Pappu vs State of U.P.

The appellant has been convicted by the trial court under Section 8/ 20/ 25/ 29/ 60(3) N.D.P.S. Act and he has been sentenced to ten years rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs.1,00,000/-.

¶16

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the trial court has failed to appreciate evidence in accordance with law. There is no credible evidence against appellant. As per prosecution version, on 08.04.2022 after receipt of information the police (STF) have tried to stop a truck bearing no.RJ05GA6671 but the driver of the truck increased the speed and tried to run away, however the truck was intercepted. It was further alleged that appellant was driving the said truck and co-accused Vishnu Datt Mishra and Divyanshu Kesarwani were sitting in the said truck. As per prosecution version, in search of said truck 40 gunny bags containing ganja were recovered and weight of total ganja was 1231 kg. It was submitted that near the spot there was a police post but the alleged search of the truck was taken in jungle and there is no independent witness of the alleged recovery. The mandatory provisions of N.D.P.S. Act, including Sections 50 and 52A of the Act, have not been complied with. No video of alleged search and recovery was made by the police. The search was not conducted in presence of Magistrate or Gazetted Officer and thus provisions of Section 50 of N.D.P.S.

¶17

CRLA No. 1990 of 2025

¶18

2

¶19

Act were not complied with. The report of arrest and seizure was also not sent to the Senior Officer and thus provisions of Section 57 N.D.P.S. Act were also not complied with. The trial Court has misread the evidence and committed error by convicting the appellant. The sample was also not taken in accordance with Rules. There are material contradictions in the statements of recovery witnesses.

¶20

It is further submitted that the trial Court has failed to consider the statement of accused recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. There is no reliable and credible evidence against appellant. Learned counsel has referred case of Rishi Dev Vs. State 2008 SCC OnLine Del 1800 and submitted that no entry of 'malkhana' regarding the alleged recovered contraband was proved during trial. There is long and undue delay in sending the sample to the FSL. Learned counsel referred case of Mohammed Khalid and Another Vs. State of Telangana (2024) 5 Supreme Court Case 393 and it was submitted that no proceedings under Section 52A NDPS Act were undertaken for preparing an inventory and obtaining samples in presence of concerned Magistrate and thus FSL report is nothing but a waste paper and can not be considered in evidence. Learned counsel has also referred a bail order passed in case of Vijay @ Kuppi Vs. State of U.P. (Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.47625 of 2021). Learned counsel submitted that conviction of appellant is not based on credible evidence and the trial Court has committed error by convicting the appellant. It is further submitted that appellant has already undergone custody of about three and a half years. Lastly, it was submitted that due to huge pendency of cases there is no possibility of early hearing in appeal and thus in view of aforesaid facts the appellant may be granted bail during pendency of appeal.

¶21

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and submitted that conviction of appellant is based on evidence. Total 1231 kg ganja was recovered from above referred truck, which was driven by the appellant-accused. The provisions of Section 50 NDPS Act are not applicable to search of a vehicle. Referring to facts of the matter, it was submitted that all the mandatory provisions of NDPS Act have been complied with. It was stated that the quantity of recovered contraband is so huge that it can not be assumed that this quantity might have been planted upon appellant and co-accused. Referring to impugned judgment, it was submitted that the conviction of appellant is based on evidence and even half of the sentence has not been served by the appellant so far. Referring to facts of the matter, it was submitted that no case for suspension of sentence / grant of bail is made out.

¶22

I have considered rival submissions and perused the record.

¶23

CRLA No. 1990 of 2025

¶24

3

¶25

The case relates to the recovery of 1231 kg ganja. The recovery was effected from the truck, which was being driven by the appellant. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits, no case for suspension of sentence is made out at this stage. Hence, the application for suspension of sentence / bail is hereby rejected .

¶26

Order on memo of appeal:-

¶27

List after three months before appropriate Bench.

¶28

January 16, 2026

¶29

'SP'/-

¶30

(Raj Beer Singh,J.)

¶31

Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Dilip Kumar Yadav Alias Pappu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

Dilip Kumar Yadav Alias Pappu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Mohd Rahman @ Saddam and 3 Others vs State of Up and 2 Others

Dr. Teg Bahadur vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Mohkam Singh @ Mokam Singh vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ashok Kumar vs State of Up and 10 Others

Arvind Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Manish Agrawal vs State of U.P. and Another