Allahabad High Court
SURENDRA YADAV ALIAS SONU YADAVversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
Holding
The Court held that bail should be granted to the applicant.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, on behalf of Surendra Yadav, who is charged under Sections 8, 20, 27A, 29 and 60 of the NDPS Act. The applicant’s name appeared only in the confessional statement of co‑accused Meera Devi, from whose possession 10.150 kg of ganja was recovered, and no contraband was found on the applicant himself. The State opposed bail, arguing that the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act had been satisfied. The Court, relying on Section 37 of the NDPS Act and Supreme Court precedents (Union of India v. Shiv Shanker Kesari and Nadeem Ahmad v. State of West Bengal), held that the circumstances warranted bail without commenting on the merits. Accordingly, bail was granted on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties and a set of strict conditions, with a warning that breach would lead to cancellation.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita for an accused named only in a co‑accused’s confessional statement under the NDPS Act.
- Whether the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act, particularly Section 37, preclude the grant of bail in this case.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 483
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act — s. 20, 27A, 29, 37, 60, 8
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- Section 37
- confessional statement
- co‑accused
- Article 21
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16509 of 2026
Surendra Yadav Alias Sonu Yadav
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anil Kumar Ojha
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 69
HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.
1. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Manoj Gautam,
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. 40 of 2026 under Sections 8/20/27A/29/60 of NDPS Act,
registered at Police Station Myorpur, District Sonbhadra during pendency of the trial.
3. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that nothing has been
recovered from the possession of the applicant and his name has surfaced in the
confessional statement of co-accused Meera Devi @ Gudiya from whose possession,
10.150 kg of Ganja is said to have been recovered. It is further submitted that co-
accused Meera Devi @ Gudiya has already been granted bail. It is further submitted
that applicant is languishing in jail since 13.3.2026 and he 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. Nothing is said to have been recovered from the possession of the applicant and his
name has surfaced in the confessional statement of co-accused Meera Devi @ Gudiya
from whose possession, 10.150 kg of Ganja is said to have been recovered. Co-
accused Meera Devi @ Gudiya has already been granted bail and the applicant is
languishing in jail since 13.3.2026.
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
BAIL No. 16509 of 2026
2
(SC) 1134 (2025 INSC 993) the larger mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of
India and 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 Surendra Yadav Alias Sonu 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 14, 2026
Madhurima
(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
MADHURIMA GARG
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…