Shri Shailesh Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 35955 of 2026

Shri Shailesh Kumar Yadav .....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Budhi Sagar Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Dhananjay Awasthi, G.A.

Court No. - 68
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

[NyayVidhan note: stored from the Allahabad High Court's digitally signed order (2 pages), read as text in the browser from the court's copy on the eCourts judgments portal (file UPHC015843172026_1_2026-10-08.pdf); that copy could not be saved, so no PDF is attached. In the text as read, the cause-title block (parties and counsel) appeared in the middle of para 5, at the foot of page 1; it is restored here to its place under the case number. The Court's text and paragraph numbers are otherwise as printed. Page furniture is removed (page number, the 'BAIL No. 35955 of 2026' running line and the staff initials line). The order is signed 'October 8, 2026'; the eCourts listing gives the decision date as 07-10-2026. No neutral citation and no 'AFR' mark appear in the text.]

[Source: Allahabad High Court order dated 08.10.2026, read from the court's copy on the eCourts judgments portal (judgments.ecourts.gov.in), CNR UPHC015843172026.]

1. List has been revised.

2. Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Upadhyay, Advocate holding brief of Sri Budhi Sagar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Dhananjay Awasthi, learned counsel for Union of India and perused the material placed on record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.Nil/2026, under Section 8/20/23 of The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station-Custom Airport Babatpur, District Varanasi, during the pendency of trial.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that 3.721 kilograms of ganja is said to have been recovered from the possession of the applicant, which is below the commercial quantity. Even the applicant did not have the keys to the bag, which was broken open by the staff of the department. The applicant himself has been forced and fooled by the other co-accused persons. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 02.08.2026. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the Union of India has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the contraband recovered from the applicant is hydroponic weed, which is stated to be more potent than conventional cannabis. It is further submitted that the applicant was travelling by air and, therefore, could not have carried a larger quantity of the said contraband. Learned counsel has further submitted that persons indulging in such activities are required to be dealt with a strong hand. Hence, the applicant is not entitled to bail.

6. Reiterating the aforesaid view the Supreme Court in the case of Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 INSC 595 has again emphasised that the very well-settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment is not to be forgotten. It is high time that the Courts should recognize the principle that "bail is a rule and jail is an exception".

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the fact that the recovered contraband is below the commercial quantity and the rigours of Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act do not apply to the instant case, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, prima-facie the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

8. Let the applicant- Shri Shailesh Kumar Yadav, 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.

October 8, 2026

(Krishan Pahal,J.)