BA2/249/2025
2025 Latest Caselaw 6085 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

BA2/249/2025 on 4 December, 2025

                                                                 2025:UHC:10794
              Office Notes,
             reports, orders
             or proceedings
SL.
      Date    or directions               COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
             and Registrar's
               order with
               Signatures
                               BA2 No.249 of 2025
                               Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.

Mr. Shariq Khurshid, Advocate for the applicant.

Mr. Deepak Bisht, Deputy Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand.

2. This is second bail application moved by the applicant seeking regular bail in F.I.R. No.377 of 2025, under Section 8/22/60 of the N.D.P.S. Act, registered at Police Station Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar. The first bail application moved on behalf of the applicant was dismissed as withdrawn by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 19.09.2025.

3. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has falsely implicated in the instant crime, has no criminal history and is languishing in jail since 05.09.2025. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the total 480 capsules of Paracetamol Dicyclomine Hydrochloride & Tramadol Hydrochloride, alleged to have been recovered from the possession of the applicant, which is less than commercial quantity and there is no independent witness of the alleged recovery. He submits that provisions contained under Section 42, 50, 52, 55 & 57 of the N.D.P.S. Act have not been complied with. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Narcotics Control Bureau Vs. Kashif, reported in (2024) 11 SCC 372, wherein it has been held that procedural irregularities and non-compliance with mandatory provisions under the N.D.P.S. Act are material considerations while adjudicating bail applications. It was further held that although Section 37 of the 2025:UHC:10794 Act prescribes stringent twin conditions for the grant of bail, the Court is nonetheless required to examine whether serious procedural lapses exist which may undermine the credibility of the prosecution case.

4. Learned State Counsel vehemently opposed the bail application.

5. Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion as to the final merits of the case, this Court is of the view that applicant deserves bail at this stage.

6. The bail application is allowed.

7. Let the applicant, namely, Mohd Sakib Ansari be released on bail, on executing personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of like amount, to the satisfaction of Court concerned, subject to the following conditions:

(i) The applicant shall attend the trial Court regularly, and, he will not seek any unnecessary adjournment.

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of this case.

(iii) The applicant shall not leave India without any prior permission of the trial Court.

It is clarified that if the applicant misuses or violates any of the conditions, imposed upon him, the complainant/ informant will be free to move the court for cancellation of bail.

(Alok Mahra, J.) 04.012.2025 Arpan