Allahabad High Court
AJAY YADAV @ AJAY KUMAR YADAVversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
Holding
The court held that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
Summary
The Allahabad High Court considered a bail application filed by Ajay Yadav, who was implicated in a case (Crime No. 378 of 2025) involving alleged illegal sale and transportation of codeine‑based cough syrup under several IPC and NDPS provisions. The applicant argued that he was not named in the FIR and that the only incriminating material was a CCTV capture of him depositing Rs.20 lakhs into a trader’s account, which he claimed did not prove participation in the drug trade. The State opposed bail but did not dispute the factual matrix. Relying on Supreme Court precedents on bail, the court noted the nature of the offence, the lack of direct evidence, and the need to address jail overcrowding, and therefore granted bail with standard conditions. The order directed verification of identity, surety requirements, and procedural steps for release.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant is entitled to bail despite the allegations and the CCTV evidence of a monetary transaction.
- Whether the absence of the applicant's name in the FIR and lack of direct evidence on his involvement in the drug offence justify granting bail.
- How the Supreme Court guidelines on bail (Kapil Wadhawan, Maya Tiwari, Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail, Pila Pahan) apply to the present case.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 208(b), 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(1), 61(2)
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act — s. 21-C, 26-D, 29, 8-C
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- codeine cough syrup
- criminal procedure
- evidentiary standards
- overcrowded prisons
- Supreme Court bail guidelines
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33900 of 2026
Ajay Yadav @ Ajay Kumar Yadav
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Siddharth Chaudhary
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 66
HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL, J.
1. Heard Sri D.R. Chaudhary, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by
Sri Siddharth Chaudhary, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Nitesh
Kumar Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the
record.
2. The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to release
the applicant on bail in Case crime no. 378 of 2025, U/s 318(4), 338,
336(3), 340(1), 208(b), 61(2) BNS & Section 8-C, 21-C, 26-D, 29
NDPS Act, Police Station- Adalhaat, District-Mirzapur, during the
pendency of the trial.
3. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that applicant
was not named in the FIR, wherein the allegation has been made that
Nihaal Enterprises, which is the proprietorship concern of Ajit Yadav,
had purchased 20,000 bottles of new Phensedyl Codeine based
cough syrup and thereafter, he sold it in open market. The name of
the applicant surfaced in the statement of the proprietor of Nihaal
Enterprises, wherein he stated that the applicant had introduced him
with one Divesh Jaiswal, who was involved in illegal sale and
transportation of Codeine based cough syrup. Thereafter, in the
statement of Divesh Jaiswal, he also made allegation against the
applicant that applicant is also involved in the business of property as
well as medicines, without making any specific reference regarding
involvement of the applicant in sale or illegal transportation of the
BAIL No. 33900 of 2026
2
Codeine based cough syrup. It is further submitted that the Police,
while conducting the investigation of case crime no.376 of 2026,
police station-Adalhaat, district-Mirzapur, collected evidence,
wherein, in the CCTV footage, applicant was found depositing Rs.20
lakhs in the account of Sunrise Traders, who is the proprietorship
concern of one Shivam Dwivedi.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that merely
because at the instruction of proprietor of Sunrise Traders, applicant
had deposited some amount, it is not sufficient to implicate the
applicant in the sale and transportation of Codeine based cough
syrup, without there being any other material. It is further submitted
that the applicant has explained the criminal history of three cases in
the accompanying affidavit. It is further submitted that charge sheet
has been filed in the present case, therefore, there is no requirement
of custodial interrogation. The applicant is languishing in jail since
19.03.2026. In case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty
of bail and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.
5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for
bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.
6. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case,
submissions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view
the nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and taking
into account overcrowded jails and heavy pendency of criminal cases
before the trial courts as well as considering the mandate of the
judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Kapil Wadhawan vs
Central Bureau of Investigation reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC
3038 as well as guideline of this Court in the case of Maya Tiwari Vs.
State of U.P. reported in 2024 SCC Online All 6765 regarding grant
of bail and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I
am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on
bail. Accordingly, the present application is allowed.
7. Let the applicant- Ajay Yadav @ Ajay Kumar Yadav, involved in
the aforementioned crime be released on bail, on his furnishing a
BAIL No. 33900 of 2026
3
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 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 cooperate in the trial/investigation sincerely
without seeking any adjournment.
iii. The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or
commission of any crime after being released on bail.
iv. The applicant shall attend in accordance with the conditions of the
bond executed by him.
8. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a
ground for cancellation of bail.
9. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be
verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
10. Verification of mobile number and Aadhaar card of the applicant
as well as sureties should be verified by the court concerned.
11. It is made clear that the applicant shall be released on the basis
of computer generated copy of this order, downloaded from the
official website of High Court Allahabad and verified by the concerned
counsel with the undertaking that the certified copy will be filed within
15 days.
12. It is further directed that the trial court shall send the release order
to the concerned jail through Bail Order Management System
(BOMS) to ensure early release of the applicant.
13. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the applicant
through Mirzapur Jail Superintendent via e-mail or on e-prison
portal and Trial Court via e-mode within 24 hours in compliance of the
BAIL No. 33900 of 2026
4
order of the Apex Court in the case of Policy Strategy for Grant of
Bail, In Re: Suo Motu Writ Petition (Crl.) No.4 of 2021 decided on
31.01.2023 reported in (2024) 10 SCC 685 as well as Pila Pahan @
Peela Pahan and others Vs. State of Jharkhand and another, in
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 169 of 2025, decided on 29.05.2026.
(Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.)
October 1, 2026
S.C.
Digitally signed by :-
SHUBHAM CHAURASIA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…