The Allahabad High Court on 26 August 2025 granted bail to Sonu Yadav, who had been arrested in connection with a narcotics case under the NDPS Act. The case, registered at Shahganj police station in Sonbhadra district, accused Yadav of involvement in the sale of heroin. However, the court observed several procedural lapses and noted the absence of direct recovery from the accused.
Yadav’s counsel argued that his client was falsely implicated and that the mandatory safeguards under Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act had not been followed during the investigation. It was further submitted that though the FIR described him as a seller, no contraband was seized from his possession. The defence also highlighted that other co-accused in the case had already been granted bail by the High Court.
Read also:- Karnataka HC Dismisses PIL Over Claims of Missing Second Volume of Gandhi’s Autobiography
The prosecution strongly opposed the plea, stressing Yadav's criminal history and describing him as a habitual offender. However, the state could not dispute the fact that co-accused had been released and that the recovery shown was below commercial quantity.
The court referred to Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which imposes strict conditions on granting bail, especially in cases involving commercial quantities. It noted that while the law requires satisfaction that the accused is not guilty and unlikely to reoffend, such determinations are prima facie in nature.
Read also:- Karnataka High Court Orders ₹15 Lakh Compensation to Student Denied MBBS Seat
In its order, the court cited the Supreme Court' ruling in State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999), which made compliance with Section 50 mandatory, stating:
When an empowered officer is about to search a person, it is imperative to inform him of his right to be taken before a Magistrate or gazetted officer."
The bench also referred to recent judgments emphasizing that grounds of arrest must be communicated effectively to the accused in a language they understand.
Read also:- EXCLUSIVE | Abhisar Sharma gets interim protection after SC refuses to quash Assam FIR
Taking into account the detention period since April 2025, the non-recovery from Yadav, the bail granted to co-accused, and the fact that the recovery was not of commercial quantity, the court held that a case for bail was made out. Without commenting on the merits, the application was allowed.
The court ordered Yadav's release on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions that he would not tamper with evidence, threaten witnesses, or engage in criminal activities. It also directed him to appear before the trial court regularly. The order added that breach of these conditions could lead to cancellation of bail.
Case Title:- Sonu Yadav vs State of U.P.
Case No.:- Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 19537 of 2025
Neutral Citation No.: 2025 AHC:148610
