[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
BA1/2101/2025 on 17 February, 2026
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
proceedings or
No Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
BA1 No. 2101 of 2025
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. M.S. Pal, learned Senior Counsel,
assisted by Ms. Amreen Bano, learned counsel
for the applicant.
2. Mr. Jai Prakash Kandpal, learned Brief
Holder for the State.
3. The applicant - Mohd. Asim, who is in
judicial custody in connection with FIR/Case
Crime No. 0225 of 2025, under Sections 8 and
22 of NDPS Act, registered at P.S.-
Banbhoolpura, District Nainital, has sought his
release on bail.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties
and perused the records.
5. In this case, the applicant was arrested
on 18.09.2025 for offences punishable under
Sections 8 and 22 of NDPS Act pursuant to
the FIR No. 0225 of 2025. The case of the
prosecution is that the Senior Drug Inspector
alongwith his team was making a random
inspection of the medical stores and when
they checked the medical store of the
applicant, in their presence, 904 capsules of
Pyeevon Spas Plus (Dicyclomine HCI Tramadol
HCI & Acetaminophen Capsules) in four boxes
including 43 loose capsules were recovered
from the house of the applicant.
6. As per the case of the prosecution, the
applicant failed to produce any valid
document in regard to the purchase of these
medicines, which is mentioned in the schedule
H1of the NDPS Act.
7. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant
would argue that applicant has been falsely
implicated in the case inasmuch as he was not
asked to produce the documents regarding
possession of this schedule drugs and all the
medicines were purchased through valid
purchase orders. It is further submitted that
all recovery is vitiated by virtue of Section 42
of the NDPS Act in which it is provided that
officer empowered by the State Government
has the power to enter search and seizure and
arrest without a prior warrant or written
authorization. As the seizure of the alleged
contraband was from the house of the
applicant and not from the shop, therefore,
before the entry search and seizure, the
officer empowered should have recorded
reasons about the information regarding the
contraband lying in the house. There is no
such document on record to show that the
empower officer had prior information that the
recovered contraband was lying in the house
of the applicant and without following the
provisions of Section 42 of the NDPS Act, the
whole search and seizure operation was
conducted. It is further submitted that the
applicant is languishing in jail since
18.09.2025.
8. Learned State Counsel, on the other
hand, has vehemently opposed the bail
application and has further submitted that the
house is located just behind the medical store,
therefore, at the time of checking of the
medical store, search and seizure was also
conducted in the house of the applicant.
9. Since, punishment under Sections 42 of
the NDPS Act are stringent, therefore,
procedure as laid down in the NDPS Act is to
be strictly complied with. As per the records,
the provisions of Section 42 of NDPS Act has
not been strictly complied with.
10. Having considered the submissions,
under the facts and circumstances of the case
and also considering the fact that provisions
of Section 42 of NDPS Act has not been
strictly complied with, this Court is of the view
that it is a case fit for bail and the applicant
deserves to be enlarged on bail.
11. Accordingly, the bail application is
allowed.
12. Let the applicant be released on bail on
his executing a personal bond and furnishing
two reliable sureties each of the like amount,
to the satisfaction of the court concerned,
subject 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.
13. It is clarified that if the applicant
misuses or violates any of the conditions,
imposed upon him, the prosecution will be
free to move the court for cancellation of bail.
(Alok Mahra J.)
17.02.2026
Ujjwal
