Allahabad High Court

YOGESH KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 19 April 2026
Bench: YOGESH DUBEY JOINT REGISTRAR JUDICIAL

Holding

The Court held that the applicant is entitled to bail despite alleged procedural lapses.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, on behalf of Yogesh Kumar, who was arrested for alleged possession of 28.100 kg of ganja under Sections 8 and 20 of the NDPS Act. The applicant argued that mandatory provisions of Sections 50 and 52-A of the NDPS Act were not complied with, citing the absence of a gazetted officer’s signature on the recovery memo and a six‑day delay in producing the seized contraband before the magistrate, contrary to the 72‑hour rule laid down in Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab. The State contended that all procedural requirements had been met. The Court, referring to Section 37 of the NDPS Act and precedents such as Union of India v. Shiv Shanker Kesari and Nadeem Ahmad v. State of West Bengal, held that despite procedural lapses, the case was suitable for bail. Consequently, the bail application was allowed subject to a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and several conditions, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the underlying offence.

Issues considered

Whether the mandatory provisions of Sections 50 and 52-A of the NDPS Act were complied with in the recovery of the seized ganja.
Whether the six‑day delay in producing the seized contraband before the magistrate violates the 72‑hour rule established in Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab.
Whether the weight discrepancy between the FIR and the sample presented affects the bail eligibility.
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in view of Section 37 of the NDPS Act and the cited precedents.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 351
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 483
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act — s. 20, 37, 50, 52-A, 8

Subjects

bail
NDPS Act
procedural compliance
recovery memo
72-hour rule
weight discrepancy
trial pendency
Section 483 B.N.S.S.

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11244 of 2026

Yogesh Kumar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite Party(s)

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

Court No. - 69
HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.

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

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

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the
BAIL No. 11244 of 2026
2

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

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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 :-

(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.

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

(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.

(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.

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

9. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for
BAIL No. 11244 of 2026
3

cancellation of bail.

10. 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.

April 20, 2026
Madhurima
(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)

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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…