Allahabad High Court

PAWAN YADAVversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 6 May 2026
Bench: ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA

Holding

The Court granted bail to the accused, finding the case fit for release on personal bond with conditions.

Summary

The High Court considered a second bail application filed by Pawan Yadav, who is charged under Sections 8, 20 and 60 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act in a case registered at Mirzapur. The applicant argued that he is innocent, has no prior criminal record, and that the trial is likely to be prolonged, while the State contended that pre‑trial innocence cannot be presumed in NDPS offences and that the applicant might resume illicit activities if released. The Court examined the constitutional guarantee of liberty under Article 21, the nature of the allegations, the risk of flight or witness tampering, and the applicant's personal circumstances. Finding no substantial reason to deny bail and noting that the applicant could be secured for trial, the Court decided the case was fit for bail. Accordingly, the Court ordered the release of the applicant on personal bond and sureties, subject to conditions prohibiting witness intimidation, further criminal conduct, and unnecessary adjournments.

Issues considered

Whether bail can be granted to an accused under Sections 8, 20 and 60 of the NDPS Act pending trial.
Whether the presumption of innocence at the pre‑trial stage is sufficient to justify bail in NDPS cases.
Whether there is a risk of the accused fleeing, tampering with evidence, or committing further offences if released on bail.

Legislation cited

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 20, 60, 8

Subjects

bail
NDPS Act
pre‑trial liberty
Article 21
criminal procedure
witness tampering
flight risk

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11965 of 2026

Pawan Yadav
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ajai Kumar Srivastava, Juhi Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 68
HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.

Heard Shri Ajai Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri
Yagyavalk Pandey, learned AGA for the State and perused the entire
material available on record.

This is the second bail application filed by the applicant. The first bail
application filed by the present applicant has been rejected by this Court by
means of a detailed order dated 9.2.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail
Application No. 40704 of 2025, a copy of which has been brought on record
as Annexure-1 to the bail application.

The applicant Pawan Yadav, has filed this second bail application with a
prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 215 of 2025, under Sections
8/20/60 of NDPS Act, Police Station Padri, District Mirzapur, during the
pendency of the trial before the Court below.

In support of this second bail application, learned counsel for the applicant
has reiterated the entire submissions made in the first bail application, which
are not necessary to mention herein again by this Court.

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the accused-applicant is
innocent. He has been falsely implicated in this very case crime number and
is languishing in jail since 18.10.2025. Learned counsel for the applicant
submits that charges against the applicant and co-accused Chandrashekhar
Kumar Majhi have been framed by the Trial Court on 17.3.2026 and case
was ordered to be posted for 30.3.2026 for prosecution evidence. On
BAIL No. 11965 of 2026
2

30.3.2026, the case was again adjourned for 10.4.2026 because no
prosecution witness was present on that date. Learned counsel for the
applicant submits that conclusion of trial may take considerable time.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits applicant has no criminal
antecedent and there is no likelihood of his fleeing from course of justice or
tampering with evidence in case of release on bail. Hence, bail has been
prayed for.

Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant by
contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial
stage who is involved in supplying contraband, therefore, the applicant does
not deserve any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail he will
again indulge in similar activity.

Considering the facts of the case, larger mandate of Article 21 of the
constitution of India, the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in
support thereof, the severity of punishment which conviction will entail, the
character of the accused-applicant, circumstances which are peculiar to the
accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the
trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the
larger interest of the public/ State and other circumstances, but without
expressing any opinion on the merits, I am of the view that it is a fit case for
grant of bail.

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

Let the applicant Pawan Yadav involved in abovesaid 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 with the following
conditions that :-

1. The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by
intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

2. The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any
adjournment.
BAIL No. 11965 of 2026
3

3. The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of
any crime after being released on bail.

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and
sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

(Ashutosh Srivastava,J.)
May 7, 2026
Ravi Prakash

Digitally signed by :-
RAVI PRAKASH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…