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
Filing Number
700/2026
Filing Date
09-Mar-2026
Registration No
250/2026
Registration Date
09-Mar-2026
Court
District and Session Judge
Judge
6-ADJ/Spl. Judge POCSO-I Bhadohi
Decision Date
20-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--DISPOSED
Last updated 17-Apr-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
202
Police Station
CHAURI
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Ajay soni
Adv. Punit Kumar Pandey
Respondent(s)
-
1.State of Uttar Pradesh
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
20-Mar-2026
PDF of Bail OrderView PDF
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.
-
20-Mar-2026
Disposed
ADJ/Spl. Judge POCSO-I Bhadohi
-
17-Mar-2026
Hearing
ADJ/Spl. Judge POCSO-I Bhadohi
-
12-Mar-2026
Hearing
ADJ/Spl. Judge POCSO-I Bhadohi
-
09-Mar-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
09-Mar-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 250/2026
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.
Explore other courts