Allahabad High Court
YOGENDRA SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- VIVEK VARMA
Holding
The Court held that the applicant is entitled to bail as the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act and its Rules were not complied with and there is no reasonable apprehension of tampering or intimidation.
Summary
The applicant Yogendra Singh filed a bail application under Section 483 of the Criminal Procedure Code in a case registered under Sections 8 and 20 of the NDPS Act, alleging false implication in the recovery of 10 kg of ganja from a motorcycle. He contended that there was no independent witness, the seized quantity was below commercial threshold, mandatory provisions of Sections 42, 50 and 52A of the NDPS Act were not complied with, and the sampling procedures under Rules 8‑11 of the NDPS (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022 were violated. The State opposed bail but could not refute these submissions. The Court found prima facie that the procedural safeguards of the NDPS Act were not followed, the applicant had no criminal antecedents, and there was no risk of tampering or witness intimidation. Consequently, the Court granted bail subject to personal bond, sureties and conditions of appearance, non‑tampering with evidence, and non‑pressurisation of witnesses.
Issues considered
- Whether the procedural requirements under the NDPS Act and its Rules were complied with in the seizure of the alleged contraband.
- Whether the quantity of the seized narcotic falls below the commercial threshold, affecting bail considerations.
- Whether the applicant, having no prior criminal record, poses a risk of tampering with evidence or intimidating witnesses warranting denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 483
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act — s. 20, 42, 50, 52A, 8
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022 — s. Rule 10, Rule 11, Rule 8, Rule 9
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- procedural violation
- quantity below commercial
- sampling rules
- false implication
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14407 of 2026
Yogendra Singh
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Awaneesha Kumar, Narendra Singh,
Rajesh Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 64
HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.
1. Learned AGA for the State submits that the instructions have been
received and he has no objection in case the bail application is decided on
merits.
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri N.K.Sharma, learned
AGA for the State-opposite party.
3. The instant bail application, under Section 483 BNSS, has been filed with
a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 73 of 2026,
under Section 8/20 N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station- Rajapur, District
Chitrakoot during the pendency of trial.
4. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely
implicated in the present case. False recovery of 10 Kg. ganja (10 packets)
has been shown from a motorcycle driven by the co-accused Jai Kumar. The
applicant is the pillion rider. There is no independent witness to the alleged
recovery. The alleged contraband is below commercial quantity. The
mandatory provisions of Sections 42, 50 and 52A of N.D.P.S. Act have not
been complied with. The procedure for sampling provided under Rule 8,
9,10 and 11 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Seizure,
Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022 have been violated. There is
no FSL report to establish that the substance recovered is ganja. The
applicant is in jail since 04.04.2026 having no criminal history and in case,
he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.
BAIL No. 14407 of 2026
2
5. Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily
dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.
6. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, I am
of the prima facie view that the mandate of Chapter V of the NDPS Act has
not been followed. There is no independent witness to the recovery. The
recovered contraband is below commercial quantity. The procedure for
sampling provided under Rule 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules,
2022 have been violated. The applicant has no criminal antecedents.
Moreover, the applicant has remained confined for more than one month and
after submission of charge sheet there is no hope of early conclusion of trial,
more so when no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by
the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the
evidence or delay the trial or intimidate the witness, without commenting on
the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be
enlarged on bail.
7. Let the applicant Yogendra Singh involved in the aforesaid 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 the
conditions that he:
(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;
(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; and,
(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.
8. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be
at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.
(Vivek Varma,J.)
May 6, 2026
Lbm/-
Digitally signed by :-
LAL BAHADUR MAURYA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…