Pawan Yadav vs State Of U.P.

Heard Shri Ajai Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Yagyavalk Pandey, learned AGA for the State and perused the entire material available on record.

This is the second bail application filed by the applicant. The first bail application filed by the present applicant has been rejected by this Court by means of a detailed order dated 9.2.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 40704 of 2025, a copy of which has been brought on record as Annexure-1 to the bail application.

The applicant Pawan Yadav, has filed this second bail application with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 215 of 2025, under Sections 8/20/60 of NDPS Act, Police Station Padri, District Mirzapur, during the pendency of the trial before the Court below.

In support of this second bail application, learned counsel for the applicant has reiterated the entire submissions made in the first bail application, which are not necessary to mention herein again by this Court.

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the accused-applicant is innocent. He has been falsely implicated in this very case crime number and is languishing in jail since 18.10.2025. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that charges against the applicant and co-accused Chandrashekhar Kumar Majhi have been framed by the Trial Court on 17.3.2026 and case was ordered to be posted for 30.3.2026 for prosecution evidence. On 30.3.2026, the case was again adjourned for 10.4.2026 because no prosecution witness was present on that date. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that conclusion of trial may take considerable time. Learned counsel for the applicant submits applicant has no criminal antecedent and there is no likelihood of his fleeing from course of justice or tampering with evidence in case of release on bail. Hence, bail has been prayed for.

Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage who is involved in supplying contraband, therefore, the applicant does not deserve any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activity.

Considering the facts of the case, larger mandate of Article 21 of the constitution of India, the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused-applicant, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interest of the public/ State and other circumstances, but without expressing any opinion on the merits, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail.

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

Let the applicant Pawan Yadav involved in abovesaid case 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 that :-

1. The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

2. The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

3. The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

(Ashutosh Srivastava,J.)

May 7, 2026

Ravi Prakash