[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
BA1/1211/2025 on 2 April, 2026
2026:UHC:2351
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.1211 of 2025
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Rajat Mittal, 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.672 of 2024, under Sections 8,
22 & 60 of N.D.P.S. Act, registered at Police
Station SIIDCUL, District Haridwar.
3. As per the allegations contained in the
F.I.R., the applicant was apprehended at
Danso Chowk at approximately 03:49 p.m.
It is alleged that a total of 4600
Buprenorphine injections, contained in two
cartons, were recovered from the
possession of the applicant along with the
co-accused. Thereafter, upon completion of
the requisite formalities in accordance with
the provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act, an
inventory of the recovered contraband was
duly prepared, and the applicant was
formally arrested at about 07:05 p.m.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant
submits that the applicant has been falsely
implicated in the present case, has no
criminal antecedents, and has been in
judicial custody since 17.12.2024. It is
contended that, in fact, the applicant was
apprehended from B.S.M. Chowk at around
12:00 p.m., which is a bustling commercial
area, and the said fact could have been
corroborated through CCTV footage installed
at various shops in the vicinity. It is further
submitted that the mandatory requirement
of communicating the grounds of arrest,
either in writing or in a meaningful oral
manner, was not complied with, thereby
2026:UHC:2351
infringing the constitutional mandate
enshrined under Article 22(1) of the
Constitution of India. Placing reliance upon
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Vihan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and
another, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC
269, it is argued that such non-
communication vitiates the arrest and
renders the consequential remand illegal,
entitling the applicant to be enlarged on bail
notwithstanding statutory embargoes.
5. Pursuant to the direction issued on the
previous date, the learned State Counsel, on
the basis of a supplementary affidavit filed
by the Investigating Officer, has submitted
that the CCTV footage of the relevant period
from B.S.M. Chowk is unavailable on
account of damage to the wiring allegedly
caused by mouse/monkeys, and that even
the CCTV system of the concerned Police
Station was non-functional during the said
period due to similar reasons.
6. The explanation so furnished does not
inspire confidence. B.S.M. Chowk, as
informed, being a densely populated and
commercially active area is expected to
have multiple functional CCTV cameras
installed across various establishments. The
assertion that all such cameras were
simultaneously non-operational at the
relevant time appears inherently
improbable. Equally unconvincing is the
explanation regarding the non-availability of
CCTV footage from the Police Station on
account of damage allegedly caused by
monkeys. In view of these circumstances,
this Court finds that the stand taken by the
prosecution does not withstand prima facie
scrutiny and lends credence to the
contention of false implication of the
applicant. Furthermore, it is evident from
the record that the grounds of arrest were
not furnished to the applicant in writing,
which constitutes a clear infraction of the
constitutional and procedural safeguards
2026:UHC:2351
governing arrest.
7. Accordingly, without expressing any
opinion on the ultimate merits of the
matter, this Court is of the considered view
that the applicant has made out a case for
grant of bail at this stage. The bail
application is allowed.
8. Let the applicant-Rajat Saini alias
Amoldeep 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.)
02.04.2026
Arpan
ARPAN
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT
2.5.4.20=eabb68a3895e41937c266c23964c0485365445e3a20d
ddb7393398f9fe45ba3e, postalCode=263001,
JAISWAL
st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=060FC17022BEAE3DE215D68D9D454C5109CB9
87446351E4DF04AADAA2C2CEA66, cn=ARPAN JAISWAL
Date: 2026.04.02 17:01:57 +05'30'
