Allahabad High Court

SHESHMANI PATEL ALIAS DEVRAJ PATELversusSTATE OF U.P.

Decided: 17 May 2026
Bench: YOGESH DUBEY JOINT REGISTRAR JUDICIAL

Holding

The Court held that bail should be granted as the procedural violations under Section 52A and the applicant’s prolonged pre‑trial detention outweighed the grounds for denial.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, on behalf of Sheshmani Patel, who was alleged to have driven a truck from which 500 kg of ganja was seized under the NDPS Act. The applicant argued that the mandatory provisions of Section 52A of the NDPS Act were violated because samples were taken 13 months after seizure, citing Supreme Court precedents that granted bail on similar grounds. The State contended that the samples were collected promptly and that no specific time limit for filing a bail application existed. After evaluating the alleged procedural lapse, the statutory provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, and the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21, the Court found the applicant’s prolonged pre‑trial detention unjustified. Consequently, the Court allowed the bail application, directing the applicant to furnish a personal bond with sureties and comply with several conditions.

Issues considered

Whether the alleged non‑compliance with Section 52A of the NDPS Act warrants the grant of bail.
Whether the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act and Article 21 of the Constitution override the presumption against bail in a case involving a large quantity of narcotics.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 483
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act — s. 20, 29, 37, 52A, 60, 8

Subjects

bail
NDPS Act
Section 52A
procedural compliance
Article 21
personal liberty
large quantity narcotics

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7938 of 2026

Sheshmani Patel Alias Devraj Patel
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ashwani Kumar Mishra, Vimlendu
Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 69
HON'BLE JITENDRA KUMAR SINHA, J.

1. Heard Sri Vimlendu Tripathi, learned counsel along with
Ashwani Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri
B.P. Maurya, learned AGA for the State-respondents and perused
the record.

2. The present bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been filed on behalf of
applicant with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 61
of 2025, under Section 8/20, 29/60 NDPS Act, registered at Police
Station Lanka, District Varanasi, during pendency of the trial.

3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that
applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this
case and he has been languishing in jail since 20.2.2025. It is
further submitted that as per FIR, 500kg of ganja is said to have
been recovered from a truck and it is alleged that the said truck
was being driven by the applicant, however, It is further submitted
that mandatory provisions of Section 52-A of NDPS Act have not
been complied with as the samples have been taken before the
learned Special Judge, NDPS, Varanasi after delay of 13 months
which is evidence from the order of learned Sessions Judge,
Varanasi which has been annexed in the supplementary affidavit.
Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on a
BAIL No. 7938 of 2026
2

judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of
Rambabu vs. State of Rajasthan wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court
granted bail to the applicants on the ground of non-compliance of
provisions of Section 52-A of NDPS Act. He has also placed
reliance on a judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the
case of Simarnjit Singh vs. State of Punjab wherein also the the
applicant was granted bail on non-compliance of Section 52A of
NDPS Act. Further, reliance has been placed on a judgement of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ankur Chaudhary vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh wherein there is long incarceration, then larger mandate
of Article 32 of the Constitution of India shall prevail over Section
37 of the NDPS Act. It is further submitted that the applicant is
having criminal history, which has been duly explained. It is also
submitted that the applicant undertakes that he will not misuse the
liberty, if granted. It has also been pointed out that in the wake of
heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any
early conclusion of trial.

4. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for
grant of bail to the applicant and it is submitted that samples have
been collected immediately after the contraband was recovered
and the application before the learned Special Judge was filed by
the I.O. for its disposal and there is no time limit fixed for filing such
application.

5. As per the allegation in the FIR, 500 kg of ganja which is huge
quantity is said to have been recovered from a truck and it is
alleged that the said truck was being driven by the applicant,
however, it is submitted that mandatory provisions of Sections 52A
of NDPS Act have not been complied with as the samples
have been taken before the learned Special Judge, NDPS,
Varanasi and process under Section 52A of NDPS Act has put in
force after 13 months regarding certification and sampling and
making inventory and photographs etc. Rules 9, 10 and 11 of the
Rules published by the Union of India in the official gazette
prescribe that application for taking sample before the learned
BAIL No. 7938 of 2026
3

Magistrate be filed at the earliest.

6. Upon considering the totality of facts, nature and the evidence
reflected from record and also taking into consideration the
provision of Section 37 of the NDPS Act and the case laws supra
cited by the learned counsel for the applicant and the larger
manage of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and also keeping
in view the fact that the applicant has been languishing in jail since
20.2.2025 without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I
find it to be a fit case for bail. Hence, the present bail application is
ALLOWED.

7. Let the applicant- Sheshmani Patel Alias Devraj Patelinvolved in
the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a
personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like
amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following
conditions :-

(i) 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.

(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution
witnesses.

(iii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial
court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of
charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of
B.N.S.S.

(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall
not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the
witnesses are present in the trial court.

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each
date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.
BAIL No. 7938 of 2026
4

8. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a
ground for cancellation of bail.

9. It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the
purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way
be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial
court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent
conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything
said in this order.

(Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)
May 18, 2026
Abhishek

Digitally signed by :-
ABHISHEK AGRAHARI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…