Allahabad High Court
AJAY YADAV @ AJAY KUMAR YADAVversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
Holding
The applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
Summary
The Allahabad High Court considered a bail application filed by Ajay Yadav, who was not named in the FIR but was mentioned in a co‑accused’s statement as having deposited money into the account of Sunrise Traders, a firm alleged to have trafficked a codeine‑based cough syrup. The applicant faced charges under several IPC sections (318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(1), 208(b), 61(2) BNS) and NDPS Act sections (8‑C, 21‑C, 26‑D, 29). Counsel argued that mere presence during a bank deposit without further material should not attract NDPS liability and that the charge sheet had already been filed, making custodial interrogation unnecessary. The State opposed bail but did not dispute the factual matrix. Relying on the principles laid down in Kapil Wadhawan v CBI (2025), Maya Tiwari v State of U.P. (2024), and recent Supreme Court bail policy pronouncements, the court held that the applicant was entitled to bail, subject to standard conditions and verification of sureties.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant, who is not named in the FIR but is implicated through a co‑accused’s statement, can be granted bail under the IPC and NDPS provisions.
- Whether the alleged conduct of depositing money into the trader’s account attracts the NDPS Act offences.
- Whether the nature of the offences and the circumstances of jail overcrowding justify the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 208(b), 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(1), 61(2) BNS
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 21-C, 26-D, 29, 8-C
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- IPC
- criminal procedure
- jail overcrowding
- co‑accused statement
- presumption of innocence
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33982 of 2026
Ajay Yadav @ Ajay Kumar Yadav
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Siddharth Chaudhary, Sr. Advocate
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. 376 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
Sunrise Traders, which is the proprietorship concern of Shivam
Dwivedi, had purchased 60,000 bottles of new Phensedyl Eskuf
Codeine based cough syrup from Vanya Traders, Delhi and
thereafter, proprietor of Sunrise Traders, Shivam Dwivedi transported
the same in open market for the purpose of intoxication. The name of
the applicant surfaced in the statement of the co-accused Amit
Jaiswal, wherein he stated that he along with Ankush Singh and
present applicant used to deposit money in the account of Sunrise
traders.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that mere
presence of the applicant in bank along with the co-accused Ankush
Singh and Alok Prajapati while depositing the amount in the account
of Sunrise Traders itself will not attract the provision of NDPS against
the applicant without therebeing any other material. It is further
submitted that the applicant has explained the criminal history of
BAIL No. 33982 of 2026
2
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
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.
BAIL No. 33982 of 2026
3
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
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.
October 1, 2026
S.C.
(Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
SHUBHAM CHAURASIA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…