[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
BA1/2539/2025 on 27 March, 2026
2026:UHC:2213
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
BA1/2539/2025
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Mukesh Singh Rawat, learned
counsel for the applicant.
2. Mr. Rakesh Joshi, learned Brief
Holder for the State.
3. Applicant- Naval Kishore, who is in
judicial custody in connection with FIR
No. 21 of 2025, under Sections 8/20 of
the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985, registered at
Police Station Chamoli, District Chamoli
has sought his release on bail.
4. Heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.
5. As per the prosecution case, on
18.07.2025, during routine checking, the
police party allegedly apprehended the
applicant and recovered Charas from the
bag carried by him. On the basis of the
said alleged recovery, the present F.I.R.
came to be registered against the applicant
on the same day.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant
submits that the applicant has been
falsely implicated in the present case and
that the mandatory provisions of the
N.D.P.S. Act have not been complied with
by the prosecution. It is contended that
there is clear non-compliance of Section
52-A of the N.D.P.S. Act, inasmuch as no
inventory of the alleged contraband was
prepared in accordance with law and the
samples were neither drawn nor produced
before the concerned Magistrate for
certification as required under the said
provision. It is further submitted that the
2026:UHC:2213
mandatory safeguards provided under
Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act have also
not been followed. Learned counsel further
submits that the alleged recovery has been
shown as a chance recovery.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant
further submits that the quantity of
contraband allegedly recovered from the
possession of the applicant is below the
commercial quantity. It is further
contended that the applicant has no
previous criminal history and is in judicial
custody since 19.07.2025. It is also
submitted that no independent public
witness was associated with the alleged
recovery, which casts serious doubt on the
prosecution version. It is further pointed
out that although the applicant was
allegedly arrested at about 11:50 a.m. on
the same day, the F.I.R. was lodged nearly
four hours thereafter. However, the
inventory report and the arrest memo,
which are alleged to have been prepared at
the spot prior to lodging of the F.I.R., bear
the F.I.R. number.
7. Learned counsel therefore submits
that the mention of the F.I.R. number in
the inventory report and arrest memo,
despite the fact that the F.I.R. was
registered subsequently, creates a serious
doubt regarding the genuineness of the
alleged recovery and indicates that the
documents were prepared later on. It is
further submitted that the applicant is a
permanent resident of District Chamoli
and there is no likelihood of his
absconding or tampering with the
prosecution evidence. It is also contended
that the trial of the case is likely to take
considerable time to conclude.
8. Learned counsel further submits that
on the previous date, the learned State
counsel had sought time to verify whether
there exists any corresponding G.D. entry
2026:UHC:2213
regarding the mention of the F.I.R.
number.
9. Per contra, learned State counsel has
vehemently opposed the bail application
and submitted that the provisions of the
N.D.P.S. Act have been duly complied with
and that the recovery has been effected in
accordance with law. However, he fairly
conceded that the quantity of contraband
allegedly recovered from the possession of
the applicant is below commercial quantity
and that there is no corresponding G.D.
entry explaining the mention of the F.I.R.
number in the documents prepared at the
spot.
10. Without expressing any opinion on
the merits of the case, and considering the
submissions advanced by learned counsel
for the parties as well as the material
available on record, particularly the nature
and quantity of the contraband allegedly
recovered, this Court is of the view that
the applicant has made out a case for
grant of bail.
11. Accordingly, the 1st bail application
is allowed on the following conditions:-
(a) The applicant shall execute a
personal bond and furnish two
reliable sureties in the like amount
to the satisfaction of the trial court.
(b) The applicant shall not leave the
country without prior permission of
the court.
(c) The applicant shall appear before
the investigating officer as and when
required and cooperate with the
investigation.
(d) The applicant shall not tamper
with evidence or witnesses, either
directly or indirectly and shall not
indulge in any criminal activity while
on bail.
(e) The applicant shall surrender his
2026:UHC:2213
passport, if any, to the court or to
the investigating agency, to preclude
risk of absconding.
12. The bail granted to the applicant
shall be liable to be cancelled in the
event of any violation of the aforesaid
conditions or if the applicant is found to
have misused the liberty granted to him.
(Alok Mahra, J.)
27.03.2026
Mamta
