Uttarakhand High Court
BA1/618/2025 on 24 June, 2025
Author: Rakesh Thapliyal
Bench: Rakesh Thapliyal
2025:UHC:5332
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
BA1 No. 618 of 2025
Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.
1. Mr. Prem Kaushal, learned counsel for the
applicant.
2. Mr. Siddhartha Bisht, learned A.G.A. with Mr.
Himanshu Sain, learned Brief Holder for the State.
3. The present applicant 'Nar Bahadue Gharti
Magar' is praying for regular bail in relation to First
Information Report dated 15.09.2024 bearing FIR
No. 99 of 2024 P.S. Banbasa, District Champawat,
wherein, the present applicant has been implicated
for the offence punishable under Section 8/20 of the
NDPS Act.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that
the applicant is innocent and has been falsely
implicated and the alleged contraband of charas
which is shown to be recovered from the present
applicant is though a commercial quantity but in
fact there is no proper compliance of Section 50 of
NDPS Act.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant further
submits that the notice under Section 50 of the
NDPS Act was given to the applicant which is in
English language and the applicant is not aware
about this language, which itself reveals that there is
no proper compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act.
In reference to his argument, he placed reliance on
the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Vihaan Kumar and Others vs. State of Haryana
and Others decided on 07.02.2025 2025 SCC Online
SC 269, wherein, it has been held that the
requirement of informing a person arrested the
ground of arrest is mandatory requirement in terms
of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and
information of the ground of arrest must be
provided to the arrested person in such a manner
that sufficient knowledge of the basic facts
constituting the grounds communicated to the
arrested person effectively in the language which he
understands.
6. He submits that the applicant is a citizen of
Nepal and either he knows Nepali language or
Hindi but he has no knowledge about the English
2025:UHC:5332
language, in reference to which the affidavit has
been filed.
7. Apart from this, he submits that the applicant
have no previous criminal history and if the
applicant is bailed out then in such an eventuality
there is a less possibility that he will repeat the
crime.
8. Learned counsel for the applicant concluded
his argument by submitting that since the notice
under Section 50 of the NDPS Act was given to the
applicant in a language which the applicant is
unable to understand and it is a mandatory
requirement, which itself reveals that the applicant
was not informed about the grounds of arrest, which
is mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution of
India and further since the applicant have no
previous criminal history therefore the twin
conditions as stipulated under Section 37 are
fulfilled and the applicant deserves for bail.
9. On the other side, learned State counsel
oppose the bail application by submitting that in
terms of Section 37 the applicant does not deserve
for bail, however, in reference to the notice issued
under Section 50 of the Act learned State counsel get
instructions from the officials and apprise to this
court that the notice under Section 50 was given in
English language. About criminal history the State
counsel have not disputed this fact that the applicant
have no previous criminal history.
10. After hearing the arguments of learned
counsel for the parties and further taking into
consideration the conclusion as drawn by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vihaan Kumar
and Others vs. State of Haryana and Others (supra)
since the notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act
was given to the applicant, which is in a English
language and the applicant is unable to understand
English language, therefore, this court is of the view
that the proper information and the ground of arrest
was not provided to the applicant, which infact is
the constitutional mandate in terms of Article 22(1)
of the Constitution of India and furthermore since
the applicant has no previous criminal history,
therefore, if the applicant is bailed out there is less
possibility that after being released on bail the
applicant will commit the offence.
11. Thus, in view of the observation as made
above, since the twin conditions as stipulated under
2025:UHC:5332
Section 37 of the NDPS Act are fulfilled, this court is
of the view that the applicant deserves for bail.
12. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion
on the merit of the case, the bail application is
allowed.
13. Let the applicant 'Nar Bahadue Gharti Magar'
be released on bail on furnishing his personal bond
and two sureties each of the like amount to the
satisfaction of the court concerned.
14. It is made clear that trial court will proceed
with the trial without being influence with the
observations as made above in its own merit.
(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)
24.06.2025
PR
2025:UHC:5332
