Uttarakhand High Court
Lala Ram vs State Of Uttarakhand on 20 September, 2025
2025:UHC:8495
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ASHISH NAITHANI
FIRST BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1144 of 2025
Lala Ram ...Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ...Respondent
Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. S.K. Mandal,
learned counsel.
Counsel for the State : Mr. Rakesh Negi, learned
Brief Holder.
Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.
The present first bail application has been moved by
the Applicant, Lala Ram, aged about 58 years, son of Bhim
Singh, resident of Village Khambari, P.S. Bazpur, District Udham
Singh Nagar, who is presently confined in jail. It arises from FIR
No. 69 of 2025, Police Station I.T.I., District Udham Singh
Nagar, registered under Sections 8, 20, and 60 of the Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).
1
First Bail Application No. 1144 of 2025, "Lala Ram vs. State of Uttarakhand"
Ashish Naithani, J.
2025:UHC:8495
2. As per the State's case, on 22.03.2025 at about 20:45
hours, the Anti-Narcotics Task Force, while conducting vehicle
checking at Delhi Turn near U.K. Dhaba, intercepted the
Applicant who was coming on a motorcycle. Upon search, the
police party claims to have recovered 1.980 kilograms of Charas,
along with one Nokia mobile phone and a sum of Rs. 1,000 from
his possession. He was taken into custody at about 21:10 hours,
and the recovery memo was prepared on the spot.
3. The Applicant was produced before the concerned
Magistrate, and samples of the seized substance were forwarded
for chemical examination. The Applicant's bail application before
the learned Special Judge, NDPS/ Sessions Judge, Rudrapur, was
rejected on 13.05.2025, primarily on the ground of Section 37 of
the NDPS Act. The Applicant has been in custody since
23.03.2025, and this is his first application for bail before this
Court.
4. Learned Counsel for the Applicant, Shri S.K. Mandal,
submits that the Applicant has been falsely implicated in the
present case and that the alleged recovery of 1.980 kilograms of
Charas is highly doubtful. It is urged that the FIR was lodged
with an unexplained delay of about four hours, despite the police
station being only 7 kilometers away from the place of alleged
occurrence. Such an unexplained delay, according to Counsel,
gives rise to a reasonable apprehension of fabrication of the
prosecution story.
5. It is further contended by the counsel of the Applicant
that although the alleged recovery was affected from the person
of the Applicant in a public place, no independent public witness
2
First Bail Application No. 1144 of 2025, "Lala Ram vs. State of Uttarakhand"
Ashish Naithani, J.
2025:UHC:8495
was associated with the proceedings, despite the availability of
such witnesses at the spot. The failure to secure independent
corroboration, despite ample opportunity, renders the prosecution
version doubtful.
6. Learned Counsel for the Applicant next points out
that mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not been
complied with. In particular, the Applicant was not informed of
his right under Section 50 of the NDPS Act to be searched before
a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. The purported justification
offered by the police party, that compliance was not possible as
the recovery was during vehicle checking, is wholly untenable in
law.
7. It is also urged that the procedure followed for
sampling is contrary to the statutory mandate. The samples were
not drawn before the learned Magistrate, but "ready-made
samples" were produced before the Court and subsequently sent
for chemical examination. To date, no conclusive proof has been
furnished that the alleged contraband was indeed Charas. Such
non-compliance with Sections 52 and 52A of the NDPS Act, and
with Sections 105 and 106 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023, vitiates the prosecution case.
8. Counsel further submits that the learned Special
Judge, while rejecting the bail application, wrongly relied upon a
previous case registered in the year 2011. It is pointed out that in
Sessions Trial No. 100 of 2011, State v. Lala Ram, the Applicant
was acquitted by judgment dated 23.12.2019. Hence, there is no
criminal antecedent against the Applicant.
9. It is lastly urged that the Applicant is a permanent
3
First Bail Application No. 1144 of 2025, "Lala Ram vs. State of Uttarakhand"
Ashish Naithani, J.
2025:UHC:8495
resident of the district, has deep roots in society, and is willing to
furnish reliable sureties. He is not likely to abscond or tamper
with evidence.
10. Per contra, learned Brief Holder, appearing for the
State, opposes the bail application. He submits that the recovery
of 1.980 kilograms of Charas falls within the category of
commercial quantity under the NDPS Act. Consequently, the
rigours of Section 37 are attracted, which impose twin conditions
before bail can be granted: (i) the Court must be satisfied that
there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not
guilty of such offence, and (ii) that he is not likely to commit any
offence while on bail.
11. It is contended that the police party, while on duty,
apprehended the Applicant in a fair and lawful manner and
effected recovery of the contraband from his possession. The
search and seizure was videographed, which, according to the
State, lends further strength to the prosecution case. At this stage
of the proceedings, such material cannot be discarded merely on
the basis of technical objections.
12. Learned counsel for the State further submits that the
seriousness of the offence, involving illicit trafficking of narcotic
substances, has wider societal implications. The legislative intent
of the NDPS Act is to curb such offences with stringent
measures. Hence, liberal grant of bail in such matters would
frustrate the very object of the statute.
13. It is argued that the delay in lodging the FIR is
minimal and stands explained by the intervening official
formalities. Further, non-association of public witnesses cannot
4
First Bail Application No. 1144 of 2025, "Lala Ram vs. State of Uttarakhand"
Ashish Naithani, J.
2025:UHC:8495
be a ground for discarding the State case at this stage, as it is a
matter of appreciation of evidence during trial.
14. In view of the above, it is submitted that the
Applicant has failed to satisfy the mandatory twin conditions
under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Therefore, the bail
application deserves to be rejected.
15. Heard learned counsel for the Parties and perused the
records.
16. The Applicant has been in custody since 23.03.2025
in connection with FIR No. 69 of 2025 registered at Police
Station I.T.I., District Udham Singh Nagar, under Sections
8/20/60 of the NDPS Act. The case of the prosecution rests on the
allegation that 1.980 kilograms of Charas was recovered from the
possession of the Applicant during vehicle checking conducted
by the Anti-Narcotics Task Force.
17. It is an admitted position that the recovery alleged is
of a commercial quantity. Therefore, the rigours of Section 37 of
the NDPS Act are attracted. Section 37 creates a statutory
embargo on the grant of bail unless the Court is satisfied on two
counts: (i) that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the
accused is not guilty of such offence, and (ii) that he is not likely
to commit any offence while on bail. These conditions, in
addition to the general principles governing bail, must be met
before a person accused of an offence involving a commercial
quantity can be released.
18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Shiv
Shanker Kesari, (2007) 7 SCC 798, has underscored that the
satisfaction contemplated by Section 37 is not prima facie
5
First Bail Application No. 1144 of 2025, "Lala Ram vs. State of Uttarakhand"
Ashish Naithani, J.
2025:UHC:8495
satisfaction about the innocence of the accused, but only a
reasonable ground based on material available at the stage of
consideration.
19. Examining the record, it is noticed that there exists an
unexplained delay of about four hours in lodging the FIR, despite
the distance between the place of occurrence and the police
station being only 7 km. Though the State seeks to justify the
delay by attributing it to official formalities, the same does not
find mention in the prosecution papers. Such delay, though not by
itself conclusive, raises a reasonable doubt about the promptness
and spontaneity of the prosecution version, particularly in cases
involving serious penal consequences.
20. Another significant feature is that the alleged
recovery was made at a public place, yet no independent witness
was associated with the proceedings. The Apex Court has
consistently observed that though non-association of public
witnesses is not fatal, it casts an added duty on the Court to
scrutinize the official version with greater caution.
21. The contention regarding non-compliance of Section
50 of the NDPS Act also assumes importance. The State's case is
that the contraband was recovered during routine vehicle
checking, and therefore, the mandatory safeguards under Section
50 were dispensed with. However, the recovery memo itself
shows that the contraband was recovered from the personal
search of the Applicant and his belongings. It is well settled that
compliance with Section 50 is mandatory where a personal
search is involved. At this stage, there is prima facie substance in
the argument of the Applicant that Section 50 has not been
6
First Bail Application No. 1144 of 2025, "Lala Ram vs. State of Uttarakhand"
Ashish Naithani, J.
2025:UHC:8495
complied with.
22. The further grievance of the Applicant that samples
were not drawn before the Magistrate and that "ready-made
samples" were produced also cannot be brushed aside lightly.
Section 52A of the NDPS Act, read with Standing Order No. 1/88
of the Narcotics Control Bureau, provides a detailed procedure to
ensure the sanctity of seized articles. The absence of clarity on
this aspect casts doubt on the integrity of the sample, particularly
when the FSL report has not been conclusively placed before this
Court.
23. The cumulative effect of the above infirmities
namely, the unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, absence of
independent witness, apparent non-compliance with Section 50,
and doubtful sampling procedure creates a reasonable ground, at
least at this stage, to believe that the Applicant is not guilty of the
offence alleged within the meaning of Section 37 of the NDPS
Act.
24. Further, the Applicant is a permanent resident of the
district, aged about 58 years, and there is no material to suggest
that he is a habitual offender or that he is likely to commit an
offence while on bail. The Court is therefore satisfied that the
second limb of Section 37 is also met.
25. In the above conspectus, this Court is of the opinion
that the Applicant has succeeded in making out a case for bail,
notwithstanding the statutory rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS
Act.
7
First Bail Application No. 1144 of 2025, "Lala Ram vs. State of Uttarakhand"
Ashish Naithani, J.
2025:UHC:8495
ORDER
The bail application is allowed.
Let the Applicant, Lala Ram, son of Bhim Singh, be
released on bail, during pendency of the trial, on his furnishing a
personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to
the satisfaction of the Court concerned.
___________________
ASHISH NAITHANI, J.
Dt: 20.09.2025
NR/
First Bail Application No. 1144 of 2025, "Lala Ram vs. State of Uttarakhand"
Ashish Naithani, J.
