[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
BA1/331/2026 on 10 March, 2026
2026:UHC:1530
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
BA1/331/2026
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Harshit Sanwal, learned counsel
for the applicant.
2. Ms. Pushpa Bhatt, learned Deputy
A.G. along with Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned
Deputy A.G. for the State.
3. The applicant-Javed, who is in
judicial custody in connection with Case
Crime/F.I.R. No. 28 of 2025 registered
under Sections 8/20/60 of the N.D.P.S.
Act, P.S. Mori, District Uttarkashi.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties
and perused the record.
6. Applicant alongwith three accused
were apprehended on 13.10.2025 at about
11:15 a.m. alleging contraband was
recovered from private vehicle, which was
registered in the name of the present
applicant.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant
contends that the applicant has been
falsely implicated. He emphasizes that the
applicant was neither the owner nor the
driver of the vehicle, and the alleged
contraband was recovered from beneath
the seat, without any evidence of
conscious possession attributable to the
applicant. Reliance is placed on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Union of India through N.C.B., Lucknow
Vs. Md. Nawaz Khan, reported in (2021)
10 SCC 100, wherein it was held that mere
presence in a vehicle or constructive
possession does not ipso facto establish
conscious possession under the N.D.P.S.
Act absent specific knowledge and control
2026:UHC:1530
over the contraband. It is argued that the
learned trial court rejected the prior bail
application of the applicant primarily on
the ground of his alleged previous criminal
history in N.D.P.S. cases. However, it is
specifically pleaded and admitted by the
State that no criminal antecedents or
pending cases exist against the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant has also
placed reliance on the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Narcotics
Control Bureau Vs. Kashif, reported in
(2024) 11 SCC 372, wherein it has been
held that procedural irregularities and
non-compliance with mandatory
provisions under the N.D.P.S. Act are
material considerations while adjudicating
bail applications. It was further held that
although Section 37 of the Act prescribes
stringent twin conditions for the grant of
bail, the Court is nonetheless required to
examine whether serious procedural
lapses exist which may undermine the
credibility of the prosecution case. Learned
counsel assures this Court that, if
enlarged on bail, the applicant shall not
misuse the liberty granted, will fully
cooperate with the investigation/trial, and
will furnish bonds/sureties as directed.
8. He would further submit that the co-
accused Shahnwaj Alam with similar role
has already been granted bail by this
Court vide order dated 09.03.2026.
9. Learned counsel for the State would
vehemently oppose the prayer for bail.
However, he would admit that the co-
accused has already been granted bail by
this Court.
10. Considering the fact that the alleged
recovery is a case of joint recovery and the
contraband is stated to have been
recovered from beneath the seat of the
vehicle, the element of conscious
2026:UHC:1530
possession cannot, at this stage, be prima
facie attributed to the applicant.
Furthermore, the inventory is stated to
have been prepared at the spot and
significantly bears the F.I.R. number,
which also raises a debatable aspect
requiring consideration during trial.
11. Without expressing any opinion on
the merits of the case, and keeping in view
the overall facts and circumstances, this
Court is of the considered opinion that the
applicant has made out a fit case for grant
of bail at this stage. Accordingly, the
applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.
12. The bail application is allowed.
13. Let the applicant 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.
14. 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.
MAM
(Alok Mahra, J.)
TA
f3e584af1449e430ef900bf09a6d
67ebbd642671329b,
postalCode=263001,
st=Uttarakhand,
serialNumber=5de1751a4f1d9c 10.03.2026
RANI
Mamta abfd54852c9e68911ca8b66dd2
6690a191648ab5d8dd004ef0,
cn=MAMTA RANI
Date: 2026.03.11 18:46:25
+05'30'
2026:UHC:1530
