Allahabad High Court
PUSHPRAJ YADAV @ SHYAM YADAVversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- JAI PRAKASH TIWARI
Holding
The Court granted bail to the applicant, finding no violation of Section 50 and deeming the circumstances sufficient for release.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed by Pushpraj Yadav (alias Shyam Yadav) in a narcotics case (Crime No. 789 of 2024) under Sections 8, 21, 27a and 29 of the NDPS Act. The applicant argued that the heroin seized (17.45 g) was below commercial quantity, that the allegations were false, and that the mandatory conditions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act were not satisfied. He also highlighted his extensive criminal history but pointed out that he was already on bail in several other cases and that the co‑accused had been released on bail earlier. The State opposed bail but did not dispute the factual contentions. The Court, after weighing the circumstances, held that the applicant was entitled to bail and ordered his release on personal bond with two sureties, subject to standard conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted in an NDPS case where the seized quantity is below commercial quantity.
- Whether the mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act have been complied with.
- Whether the applicant's prior criminal history precludes the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act — s. 21, 27a, 29, 50, 8
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- drug trafficking
- Section 50
- commercial quantity
- criminal history
- sureties
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT
ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. -
15585 of 2026
Pushpraj Yadav @ Shyam Yadav
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Prateek Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 70
HON'BLE JAI PRAKASH TIWARI, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.
2. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant
on bail in Case Crime No. 789 of 2024, under Section 8/21/27a/29 N.D.P.S.
Act, Police Station Robertsganj, District Sonbhadra, during the pendency of
the trial.
3. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that present first
information report was lodged against applicant and Co-accused Raj Soni
and according to the first information report, from the possession of
applicant and co-accused each 17.45 gram heroine was recovered. He further
argued that on the basis of false allegation, applicant has been made an
accused in the present matter and even alleged recovered of heroine is less
than the commercial quantity. He also argued that mandatory provisions of
Section 50 of N.D.P.S. Act have not been complied with.
4. He further submits that however apart from the present case, applicant is
having criminal history of four other cases being Case Crime No. 224 of
2023, 1039 of 2024, 52 of 2024 and 485 of 2024, which has been explained
in para no. 24 of the affidavit and in Case crime No. 224 of 2023, 52 of 2024
BAIL No. 15585 of 2026
2
and 485 of 2024, he is on bail, copy of bail order has been collectively
annexed as Annexure No.2 to this affidavit. Apart from the same, the
applicant is also having criminal history of five cases being Case Crime No.
02 of 2025, 207 of 2025, 101 of 2025, 185 of 2025 and 193 of 2025, which
has been explained in para no. 27 of the affidavit and in Case Crime No. 02
of 2025 and 207 of 2025, he is on bail, copy of bail order has been
collectively annexed as Annexure-3 to this affidavit. He further submitted
that co-accused Raj Soni has already been released on bail by this Court vide
order dated 18.03.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 42880
of 2024. He further submits that applicant is languishing in jail since
25.05.2025.
5. Per contra, learned AGA however, opposed the prayer for bail but could
not dispute the argument on facts advanced by learned counsel for the
applicant.
6. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed
above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
7. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the
instant bail application is allowed.
8. Let the applicant -Pushpraj Yadav @ Shyam Yadav be released on bail in
the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the
like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following
conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless
his personal presence is exempted.
(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make 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 any police officer or tamper
with the evidence.
(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.
9. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at
liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail
of the applicant.
BAIL No. 15585 of 2026
3
10. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts
brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the
said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.
(Jai Prakash Tiwari,J.)
May 7, 2026
T.S.
Digitally signed by :-
TRIBHUWAN SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…