[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
BA1/1782/2025 on 7 April, 2026
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
BA1/1782/2025
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. M.S. Pal, learned senior counsel
assisted by Ms. Amreen Banol, learned
counsel for the applicant.
2. Mr. Akshay Latwal, learned A.G.A.
and Mr. Prabhat Kandpal, learned Brief
Holder for the State.
3. Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned special
counsel for NCB/respondent no.2.
4. Applicant- Arun Kumar, who is in
judicial custody in F.I.R./Case Crime
No.05 of 2025, under connection with
Sections 8, 22 & 29 of N.D.P.S. Act,
registered at Police Station NCB DDN,
District Haridwar, has sought his release
on bail.
5. Heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.
6. As per the prosecution case, on
01.08.2025, acting upon information
received from a reliable source, officials of
the NCB intercepted the applicant who
was travelling in a Swift Dzire car. During
search, two boxes were allegedly
recovered from the vehicle, each
containing 12,800 capsules of Tramadol,
thus totaling 25,600 capsules. The total
weight of the recovered capsules is stated
to be 15.488 kg, which according to the
prosecution falls within the commercial
quantity prescribed under the NDPS Act.
7. Learned senior counsel for the
applicant would submit that the
applicant has been falsely implicated in
the present case. It is contended that one
Amardeep Chauhan had business
dealings with the applicant; that, the said
person had purchased dairy products
such as paneer cream and curd from the
applicant's shop and had also borrowed
money amounting to approximately Rs.
1,83,000/-, which he failed to repay and
when the applicant demanded the said
amount, the said person, in connivance
with the informant. allegedly got the
present false case registered against the
applicant.
8. It is further submitted that the
applicant is engaged in the business of
dairy products and also possesses a valid
retail medical licence; that, there are
serious discrepancies in the prosecution
documents regarding the quantity and
weight of the alleged contraband. It is
pointed out that in the panchnama, the
total weight of the recovered capsules is
mentioned as 15.488 kg, whereas in the
seizure memo the weight of capsules
contained in each box is shown as 7.244
kg, making the total 14.488 kg, thereby
creating an inconsistency in the actual
quantity allegedly recovered.
9. It is also, argued that in the remand
order dated 02.08.2025 it has been
recorded that only 12.800 Tramadol
capsules were recovered, which again
contradicts the prosecution version of
recovery of 25,600 capsules. Learned
senior counsel further submits that even
the police station has been wrongly
mentioned as CBN Dehradun in remand
sheet. According to him, these
contradictions raise serious doubt about
the manner of recovery and preparation
of seizure documents.
10. Learned senior counsel also
contends that the provisions of Section
52-A of the NDPS Act have not been
complied with and that the actual
procedure for weighing the alleged
contraband has not been recorded in the
panchnama. According to him, the weight
of the alleged contraband appears to have
been calculated without actually being
weighted, thereby casting doubt on the
veracity of the prosecution version.
11. Per contra, learned counsel
appearing for the NCB submits that
though certain discrepancies exist in the
documents regarding the weight of the
recovered contraband, the same are
typographical errors and do not
materially affect the prosecution case. It
is further submitted that the recovered
contraband is of commercial quantity,
therefore the rigours of Section 37 of the
NDPS Act are attracted and mere
discrepancies in the documents would
not entitle the applicant to bail. It is also
submitted that the batch numbers and
manufacturing details on the capsule
strips were allegedly removed with a
blade and concealed with marker,
indicating that the contraband was
intended for illegal trafficking.
12. In rejoinder, learned senior counsel
for the applicant reiterates that the
contradictions in the recovery memo,
panchnama and remand papers create
serious doubt about the recovery of the
alleged contraband, which recovered from
the possession of the applicant. It is also
submitted that the applicant is in
custody since 01.08.2025, he has no
previous criminal history, and the trial is
likely to take a considerable time to
conclude.
13. Having heard learned counsel for the
parties and upon perusal of the record, it
is not disputed that there are
inconsistencies in the prosecution
documents regarding the number of
capsules recovered and the total weight
of the alleged contraband. The
panchnama, seizure memo and remand
order reflect different figures with respect
to the quantity and weight, which prima
facie creates doubt regarding the manner
in which the recovery proceedings were
14. At this stage, without expressing any
opinion on the final 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.
15. Let the applicant be released on bail,
on executing personal bond and
furnishing two reliable sureties, each of
personal bond and 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.
16. 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.)
07.04.2026
Mamta
