Allahabad High Court
RANJEET YADAVversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
Holding
The Court held that the applicant is entitled to bail, finding the case fit for release under the applicable provisions.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, on behalf of Ranjeet Yadav, who was implicated in an NDPS case (Sections 8, 20, 29, 60) for allegedly having 24.4 kg of ganja in the dickey of a vehicle he was driving. The applicant argued that the contraband was not in his conscious possession and that mandatory procedures under Section 52-A of the NDPS Act—specifically sample collection as per Rules 8‑11—were not complied with, contending false implication. The State maintained that all statutory requirements had been met. The Court examined the nature of the evidence, the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, and relevant Supreme Court precedents, and without expressing a view on the merits, found the case suitable for bail. Accordingly, bail was granted on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties, subject to strict conditions regarding non‑interference with witnesses and presence at trial dates. The order expressly limited its scope to the bail application and did not prejudice the trial court’s independent assessment of the case.
Issues considered
- Whether the bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, should be granted in an NDPS case where the alleged contraband was not in the accused's conscious possession.
- Whether the mandatory provisions of Section 52-A of the NDPS Act, concerning sample collection and certification, were complied with.
- Whether the circumstances of the case satisfy the criteria for bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 483
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act — s. 20, 29, 37, 52-A, 60, 8
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- Section 52-A
- sample collection
- conscious possession
- Section 37
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
- criminal procedure
- presumption of innocence
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15074 of 2026
Ranjeet Yadav
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Krishna Mani
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 69
HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.
1. Heard Sri Krishna Mani, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri BP Singh, learned
AGA for the State-respondents and perused the record.
2. 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. 62 of 2026 under Section 8/20/29/60 NDPS Act, registered at
Police Station Raipur, District Sonbhadra during pendency of the trial.
3. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has been
falsely implicated in this case and 24.4 kg of Ganja is said to have been recovered
from the dickey of a vehicle which was allegedly being driven by the applicant. It is
further submitted that nothing is said to have been recovered from conscious
possession of the applicant and mandatory provisions of Section 52-A of NDPS Act
have not been complied with as samples have not been collected in accordance with
Rules 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the Rules published by the Union of India in the official
gazette nor the same have been certified by any Judicial Magistrate. It is further
submitted that applicant has no criminal history and he is languishing in jail since
10.4.2026. 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.
4. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the
applicant and submits that mandatory provisions of NDPS Act have been complied
with.
5. As per the FIR, 24.4 kg of Ganja is said to have been recovered from the dickey of
a vehicle which was allegedly being driven by the applicant. It is submitted that
nothing is said to have been recovered from conscious possession of the applicant as
he was not aware about the said contraband being kept in the dickey and mandatory
provisions of Section 52-A of NDPS Act have not been complied with as samples
BAIL No. 15074 of 2026
2
have not been collected in accordance with Rules 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the Rules
published by the Union of India in the official gazette nor the same have been certified
by any Judicial Magistrate. It is further submitted that applicant has no criminal
history and he is languishing in jail since 10.4.2026.
6. 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), Pankaj Bansal vs. Union of India (2024) 7 SCC 576
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.
7. Let the applicant Ranjeet Yadav 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.
8. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail.
9. 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.
May 5, 2026
Madhurima
(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
MADHURIMA GARG
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…