Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

YASHPALversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided

Holding

The court held that bail is appropriate in the present circumstances and granted it.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Yashpal in a narcotics case (Crime No. 162 of 2026) under Sections 8 and 18 of the NDPS Act, where 650 grams of opium—below commercial quantity—had been seized. The applicant claimed innocence, alleged false recovery, and pointed out non‑compliance with the mandatory provisions of Sections 52A and 57 of the NDPS Act. The State opposed the bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the offence. After reviewing the record and noting the lack of mandatory compliance, the court, without delving into the merits, found the case fit for bail. Accordingly, the court granted bail subject to a personal bond, two sureties, and conditions not to tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses.

Issues considered

  • Whether bail should be granted in an NDPS case where the seized quantity is below commercial quantity.
  • Whether non‑compliance with mandatory provisions of Sections 52A and 57 of the NDPS Act warrants bail.
  • Whether the applicant’s claim of innocence and lack of prior criminal history affect the bail decision.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • bail
  • NDPS Act
  • narcotics
  • Section 8
  • Section 18
  • Section 52A
  • Section 57
  • commercial quantity
  • criminal procedure

Judgment

            HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
            CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33128 of 2026

Yashpal
                                                               .....Applicant(s)
                                     Versus

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

Counsel for Applicant(s)                            :   Sudhir Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)                       :   G.A.

Court No. - 68
(Sr. No.1 out of 114)

                        HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

1. List has been revised.

2. Heard Sri Anoop Rai, Advocate holding brief of Sri Sudhir Kumar,
learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ram Mohit Yadav, learned A.G.A. for
the State and perused the material placed on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.162 of 2026, under Section 8/18 of
The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station-
Aliganj, District- Bareilly, during the pendency of trial.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is
absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with
a view to cause unnecessary harassment and to victimize him. A false
recovery of 650 grams of opium has been foisted on the applicant. The
allegations are per se false and the recovered contraband is below the
commercial quantity.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that there is no
compliance of mandatory provision of Section 52A & 57 of the N.D.P.S.
Act. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is
languishing in jail since 17.7.2026. The applicant is ready to cooperate with
trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty
of bail.

6. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application.
                                                                                             BAIL No. 33128 of 2026
                                                                      2

                                    7. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusal of record and
                                    considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment as well as
                                    totality of facts and circumstances coupled with the fact that recovered
                                    contraband is below the commercial quantity and there being no compliance
                                    of mandatory provision of Section 52A & 57 of the NDPS Act, without
                                    commenting on the merits of the case, prima facie, I find it a fit case for
                                    bail. The bail application is allowed.

                                    8. Let the applicant- Yashpal, be released on bail in the aforementioned case
                                    crime on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of
                                    the court concerned, subject to verification of sureties, with the conditions
                                    that he shall not tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses and shall
                                    appear before the trial court as required.

                                    9. Breach of any condition shall entail cancellation of bail. The observations
                                    herein shall not affect the trial on merits.



                                                                                              (Krishan Pahal,J.)
                                    September 17, 2026
                                    Vikas Verma




Digitally signed by :-
VIKAS VERMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.