[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
Gurmeet Singh @ Meeta vs State Of Uttarakhand on 18 March, 2026
2026:UHC:1943
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
1st Bail Application No. 258 of 2026
Gurmeet Singh @ Meeta ......Applicant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand .....Respondent
Presence: Mr. Mani Kumar, learned counsel for the Applicant.
Mr. J. P. Kandpal, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.
Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J (Oral)
The present first bail application has been filed on behalf
of the Applicant, Gurmeet Singh @ Meeta aged about 42 years old,
son of Shri Inder Singh, resident of Village Dalrajpur, Police Station
Shinghai, District Lakimpur Kheeri, Uttar Pradesh. The Applicant is
currently in judicial custody since 16.12.2025 in connection with FIR
No.112 of 2025, registered at Police Station Banbasa, District
Champawat, for offences punishable under Sections 8/21/60 of the
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).
2. Heard the learned counsels for the parties, Mr. Mani
Kumar, learned counsel for the Applicant, and Mr. J. P. Kandpal,
learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand. Perused the records.
3. Learned counsel for the Applicant contends that the
Applicant has been falsely implicated and the alleged recovery is
fabricated rather planted in order to fulfill the parameters of FIR.
4. It is argued that the mandatory provisions of the NDPS
Act, including Sections 42 and section 50, regarding search and
seizure, were not followed. Learned counsel for the Applicant further
argues that a joint communication was made to the present Applicant
1
1st Bail Application No.258 of 2026-----Gurmeet Singh @ Meeta vs. State of Uttarakhand
Ashish Naithani J.
and co-accused about their legal rights which is impermissible as per
Section 50 of NDPS Act.
5. Learned counsel further argues that the Applicant is
willing to cooperate with the investigation and is languishing in jail
since 16.12.2025.
6. Learned counsel also submits that there is violation of
Section 52A of NDPS Act, as the inventory report was not prepared in
the spot.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the Statevehemently
opposed the bail application, contending that the Applicant was found
in possession of a commercial quantity of contraband, i.e., 271 grams
of smack, which attracts stringent punishment under the NDPS Act.
That as per the FIR, a total of 799 grams of illegal smack/heroine, 1
motorcycle black pulsar 160cc without number plate, 3 mobile phones
and Rs. 2800 was recovered from the present Applicant and the co-
accusedpersons out of which 271 grams of illegal smack/heroine was
recovered inside a white transparent polythene bag from the left
pocket of black jacket which the present Applicant-Gurmeet Singh
alias Meeta was wearing, alongwith one grey colored Redmi mobile
phone and Rs. 2000 cash.
8. It is further submitted that the preparation of inventory
report was done on the spot by the concerned police team and the
same has been duly certified by the Magistrate.
9. It is further submitted by the State counsel that the
grounds of arrest and reasons were duly communicated to the present
Applicant and the family members of the present Applicant were also
informed regarding his arrest.
2
Bail Application 1st No. 258 of 2026-----Gurmeet Singh @ Meeta vs State of Uttarakhand
Ashish Naithani J.
10. At this juncture, considering the rival submissions, it
emerges that the recovery alleged from the present Applicantis of 271
grams of smack, which is above the prescribed commercial quantity
threshold. Thus, the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act would be
attracted. However, the principal contention raised on behalf of the
Applicant pertains to non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of
Section 50 of the NDPS Act, particularly on account of joint
communication of legal rights to the Applicant and the co-accused.
11. The law in this regard is no longer res integra. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan vs. Parmanand & Anr., (2014) 5
SCC 345, has categorically held that the safeguard under Section 50 of
the NDPS Act is a substantive and valuable right, which is required to
be strictly complied with. The accused must be made aware of his
right individually and in a meaningful manner, so as to enable him to
make an informed choice.
12. The Hon'ble Apex Court has specifically disapproved the
practice of joint communication and has held that:
"In our opinion, a joint communication of the right
available under Section 50(1) of the NDPS Act to the accused would
frustrate the very purport of Section 50. Communication of the said
right to the person who is about to be searched is not an empty
formality. It has a purpose....The communication of this right has to
be clear, unambiguous and individual....A joint communication of
the right may not be clear or unequivocal. It may create confusion. It
may result in diluting the right. We are, therefore, of the view that
the accused must be individually informed that under Section 50(1)
of the NDPS Act, he has a right to be searched before a nearest
gazetted officer or before a nearest Magistrate."
3
Bail Application 1st No. 258 of 2026-----Gurmeet Singh @ Meeta vs State of Uttarakhand
Ashish Naithani J.
13. Thus, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly laid down that
joint communication frustrates the very object of Section 50 and
renders the compliance doubtful, particularly where the recovery is
effected from personal search.
14. In the present case, as per the version emerging from the record
and the submissions advanced, the communication of rights under
Section 50 appears to have been made jointly to the Applicant and the
co-accused. Prima facie, such joint communication is in the teeth of
the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Parmanand (supra),
thereby rendering the compliance of Section 50 doubtful.
15. In such circumstances, at this juncture, this Court is satisfied
that there exist reasonable grounds for believing that the Applicant is
not guilty of the alleged offence, for the limited purpose of
consideration of bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Further, there
is nothing on record to indicate that the Applicant is likely to commit
any offence while on bail.
ORDER
16. Accordingly, the present Bail Application stands allowed.
17. Let the Applicant, Gurmeet Singh @ Meeta, be released on bail
on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like
amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
(Ashish Naithani, J.)
18.03.2025
Arti
Bail Application 1st No. 258 of 2026-----Gurmeet Singh @ Meeta vs State of Uttarakhand
Ashish Naithani J.
