[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
BA1/2128/2025 on 18 March, 2026
2026:UHC:1871
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.2128 of 2025
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Faizan Ali, 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 Case Crime/F.I.R. No.837 of 2025,
under Sections 8 read with 22 and 60 of
N.D.P.S. Act, registered at Police Station
Laksar, District Haridwar.
3. Applicant was apprehended by the
police party, and from his possession,
316.8 grams comprising 480 capsules of
Diclomine Hydrochloride and Tramadol
was allegedly recovered.
4. It is contended by learned counsel for
the applicant that applicant has falsely
been implicated in the instant crime; has
no criminal history and is languishing in
jail since 20.08.2025. It is further
submitted that a bare perusal of the F.I.R.
reveals that the inventory report and
arrest memo were purportedly prepared
on the spot on the private laptop of the
Investigating Officer, and copies thereof
were subsequently provided to the
applicant after being printed from a shop
in the market. It is submitted that the
inventory report is, in fact, handwritten
and not computerized, as stated in the
F.I.R. It is further argued that both the
inventory report and the arrest memo bear
the F.I.R./Case Crime number, whereas
the F.I.R. itself was lodged on the next
day after a delay of more than five hours.
2026:UHC:1871
Hence, at the time of preparation of the
arrest memo and inventory report, the
F.I.R./Case Crime number was not in
existence, which renders the prosecution
version doubtful. Learned counsel for the
applicant has 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 for the
applicant submits that in case, the
applicant is granted bail, he will not
misuse the same and will furnish the bail
surety as per the satisfaction of this Court.
5. On last occasion, learned State
Counsel was directed to get instructions
regarding the existence of a corresponding
General Diary (G.D.) entry corresponding
to the spot inventory prepared at the
scene. Today, on instructions, learned
State Counsel submits that there is no
such General Diary entry.
6. Considering the submissions of
learned counsel for the parties and the
material on record, this Court finds that
the applicant has no criminal antecedents
and is in custody since 20.08.2025. Prima
facie, there appear arguable procedural
irregularities in the prosecution case,
inasmuch as, the inventory report and
arrest memo allegedly prepared prior to
registration of the F.I.R. bear the
F.I.R./Case Crime number, which creates
2026:UHC:1871
doubt requiring scrutiny during trial. The
contention that the inventory report is
handwritten despite being stated as
computerized further adds to the
inconsistency. In view of the law laid down
in Narcotics Control Bureau vs. Kashif
(Supra), such lapses are relevant for
considering bail even under the rigours of
Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act.
7. Accordingly, without expressing any
opinion as to the final merits of the case,
this Court is of the view that applicant
deserves bail at this stage.
8. The bail application is allowed.
9. Let the applicant, namely, Naeem 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.)
18.03.2026
Arpan
ARPAN
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT
2.5.4.20=eabb68a3895e41937c266c23964c0485365445e3a20ddd
JAISWAL
b7393398f9fe45ba3e, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=060FC17022BEAE3DE215D68D9D454C5109CB987
446351E4DF04AADAA2C2CEA66, cn=ARPAN JAISWAL
Date: 2026.03.18 16:43:02 +05'30'
