Ajay soni vs State of Uttar Pradesh — 250/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483. Disposed: Uncontested--DISPOSED on 20th March 2026.

BAIL APPLICATION

CNR: UPSN010007772026

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

700/2026

Filing Date

09-03-2026

Registration No

250/2026

Registration Date

09-03-2026

Court

District and Session Judge

Judge

6-ADJ/Spl. Judge POCSO-I Bhadohi

Decision Date

20th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--DISPOSED

FIR Details

FIR Number

202

Police Station

CHAURI

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483

Petitioner(s)

Ajay soni

Adv. Punit Kumar Pandey

Respondent(s)

State of Uttar Pradesh

Hearing History

Judge: 6-ADJ/Spl. Judge POCSO-I Bhadohi

20-03-2026

Disposed

17-03-2026

Hearing

12-03-2026

Hearing

09-03-2026

Hearing

Final Orders / Judgements

20-03-2026
PDF of Bail Order

Summary: The Special Sessions Court (NDPS Act) in Bhadohi rejected the bail petition of Ajay Soni, accused under Sections 8/20 of the NDPS Act and Sections 318(4), 319(2) of the BNS. The court found prima facie evidence that the accused facilitated the transportation of commercial quantity cannabis (1 quintal 880 grams) by co-accused through phone instructions, as evidenced by call details, despite the accused's contention that he was falsely implicated based solely on co-accused's statements. Considering the seriousness of the offense, commercial quantity of contraband seized, and lack of satisfactory evidence proving his innocence or absence of recidivism risk under NDPS Section 37(1)(b), the bail application was dismissed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The Special Sessions Court (NDPS Act) in Bhadohi rejected the bail petition of Ajay Soni, accused under Sections 8/20 of the NDPS Act and Sections 318(4), 319(2) of the BNS. The court found prima facie evidence that the accused facilitated the transportation of commercial quantity cannabis (1 quintal 880 grams) by co-accused through phone instructions, as evidenced by call details, despite the accused's contention that he was falsely implicated based solely on co-accused's statements. Considering the seriousness of the offense, commercial quantity of contraband seized, and lack of satisfactory evidence proving his innocence or absence of recidivism risk under NDPS Section 37(1)(b), the bail application was dismissed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

District and Session Judge All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case