Yogendra Singh vs State Of U.P.

HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. Learned AGA for the State submits that the instructions have been received and he has no objection in case the bail application is decided on merits.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri N.K.Sharma, learned AGA for the State-opposite party.

3. The instant bail application, under Section 483 BNSS, has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 73 of 2026, under Section 8/20 N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station- Rajapur, District Chitrakoot during the pendency of trial.

4. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. False recovery of 10 Kg. ganja (10 packets) has been shown from a motorcycle driven by the co-accused Jai Kumar. The applicant is the pillion rider. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. The alleged contraband is below commercial quantity. The mandatory provisions of Sections 42, 50 and 52A of N.D.P.S. Act have not been complied with. The procedure for sampling provided under Rule 8, 9,10 and 11 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022 have been violated. There is no FSL report to establish that the substance recovered is ganja. The applicant is in jail since 04.04.2026 having no criminal history and in case, he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

5. Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

6. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, I am of the prima facie view that the mandate of Chapter V of the NDPS Act has not been followed. There is no independent witness to the recovery. The recovered contraband is below commercial quantity. The procedure for sampling provided under Rule 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022 have been violated. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. Moreover, the applicant has remained confined for more than one month and after submission of charge sheet there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, more so when no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the evidence or delay the trial or intimidate the witness, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

7. Let the applicant Yogendra Singh involved in the aforesaid 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 subject to the conditions that he:

(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;

(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; and,

(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.

8. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

(Vivek Varma,J.)

May 6, 2026

Lbm/-