Om Prakash Patel vs State of U.P.

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that 20 Kilograms Ganja is alleged to have been recovered from the joint possession of the applicant and co-accused, whereas in fact, no such recovery has taken place. It is further submitted that there is no independent witness of the alleged recovery. Alleged offences are not made out against the applicant. The applicant has been falsely implicated in this case on account of enmity. The mandatory provisions of N.D.P.S Act have not been complied with in the present case. Applicant has been languishing in jail since 10.10.2025 and in case she is enlarged on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶10

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail.

¶11

It reveals from the perusal of record that total 20 Kgs. Ganja has been recovered from two bags from the Car, which was driven by Indrabhan Patel and the present applicant was sitting in the Car alongwith other persons. It was a case of joint possession. No criminal history of the applicant comes into light before this Court. Applicant is said to be in jail since 10.10.2025. Grounds taken in the bail application are sufficient. Hence, keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh vs. State of U.P. and another, (2018) 3 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is

¶12

BAIL No. 40271 of 2025

¶13

2

¶14

allowed.

¶15

Let the applicant Om Prakash Patel involved in Case Crime No.0434 of 2025 under Section 8/20 of N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station Aurai, District - Bhadohi be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶16

(i). The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶17

(ii). The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶18

(iii). The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶19

(iv). The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶20

(v). The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶21

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

¶22

November 17, 2025 ss

¶23

(Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.)

¶24

Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Om Prakash Patel v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Om Prakash Patel v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Up vs Karuwa so Kamal singh

Gulab Kali vs State of U.P. and Another

Dildar Member Alias Dildar Ahmad vs State of U.P. and Another

Sanjay Kumar vs State of U.P.

Lokesh vs State of U.P.

Smt Hema @ Prem Lata vs State of U.P.