Uttarakhand High Court
BA1/940/2025 on 20 November, 2025
2025:UHC:10321
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.940 of 2025
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Saurav Adhikari, Advocate for
the applicant.
Mr. Deepak Bisht, Deputy Advocate
General for the State of Uttarakhand.
2. This first bail application has been
moved by the applicant seeking regular
bail in F.I.R. No.06 of 2025, under
Sections 8/20 of N.D.P.S. Act, registered
at Police Station Bazpur, District Udham
Singh Nagar.
3. The applicant was apprehended at
about 02:20 a.m. on 03.01.2025 by the
police team and, as per the averments in
the F.I.R., he was allegedly carrying an
orange-coloured cloth bag hanging on his
shoulder, in which 1.266 kg of Charas
was recovered in the presence of the
Circle Officer, who is a Gazetted Officer.
The F.I.R. further states that the
inventory was prepared on the spot.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant
submits that the applicant has been
falsely implicated in the instant case and
the prosecution story is wholly
concocted. It is submitted that although
the F.I.R. was registered on 03.01.2025
at 05:10 a.m., the alleged arrest,
recovery, and preparation of inventory
are stated to have taken place at around
02:20 a.m., i.e., prior to the lodging of
the F.I.R. However, despite this admitted
chronology, the so-called inventory
prepared at 02:20 a.m. inexplicably
2025:UHC:10321
contains the F.I.R. number, which could
not have existed at that point of time.
Learned counsel submits that this glaring
discrepancy goes to the root of the
prosecution case and prima facie
demonstrates ante-timing, manipulation,
and fabrication of the recovery
proceedings. It is further submitted that
the presence of a Gazetted Officer at
such an odd hour, without any prior
information or compliance of statutory
requirements, creates serious doubt
about the genuineness of the alleged
recovery. Learned counsel contends that
the mandatory safeguards under the
N.D.P.S. Act, including the requirement
of transparency in search and seizure,
have not been adhered to. Moreover,
there is no independent public witness to
support the prosecution's version, which
further weakens the credibility of the
recovery. Learned counsel also draws
attention to the fact that the applicant is
a person with no criminal antecedents
and has been in custody since
03.01.2025. He further submits that the
inventory purportedly prepared by the
Police is not in conformity with Form-4,
as mandated under Rule 8 of the
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances (Seizure, Storage, Sampling
and Disposal) Rules, 2022. It is
contended that non-compliance with the
statutory format vitiates the authenticity
of the seizure proceedings and casts
serious doubt on the prosecution case at
this stage. Learned counsel for the
applicant placed reliance upon the
judgment rendered in the case of
Narcotics Control Bureau Vs. Kashif,
reported in (2024) 11 SCC 372, wherein
the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that
procedural irregularities and non-
compliance with mandatory provisions
2025:UHC:10321
under the N.D.P.S. Act are material
considerations while deciding bail
applications. It was further held that
while Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act
imposes twin conditions for grant of bail,
the Court must also examine whether
there are serious procedural lapses that
affect the credibility of the prosecution
case.
5. Learned State Counsel vehemently
opposed the bail application and submits
that applicant was apprehended with
commercial quantity contraband. He
submits that minor discrepancies or
absence of independent witnesses do not
undermine the case at this stage,
especially when the contraband was
actually recovered from the possession of
the applicant.
6. 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.
7. The bail application is allowed.
8. Let the applicant, namely, Jainath
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
2025:UHC:10321
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.)
20.11.2025
Arpan
ARPAN
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH
2.5.4.20=eabb68a3895e41937c266c23964c0485365445
e3a20dddb7393398f9fe45ba3e, postalCode=263001,
JAISWAL
st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=060FC17022BEAE3DE215D68D9D454C51
09CB987446351E4DF04AADAA2C2CEA66, cn=ARPAN
JAISWAL
Date: 2025.11.20 17:57:48 +05'30'
