Uttarakhand High Court
BA1/2017/2025 on 9 March, 2026
2026:UHC:1463
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.2017 of 2025
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Harshpal Sekhon, Advocate for
the applicants.
Mr. Akshay Latwal, A.G.A. for the
State of Uttarakhand.
2. This first bail application has been
moved by the applicants seeking regular
bail in F.I.R./Case Crime No.149 of 2025,
under Sections 8/18/60 of N.D.P.S. Act,
registered at Police Station Pulbhatta,
District Udham Singh Nagar.
3. As per the prosecution case, the
applicants were apprehended on
29.09.2025 at about 16:55 hours near
Police Station Pulbhatta, District Udham
Singh Nagar and were allegedly found in
possession of contraband O.P.M.,
weighing 4.034 kg from applicant no.1
and 3.008 kg from applicant no.2.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants
submits that applicants have falsely been
implicated in the instant case and are
languishing in jail since 29.09.2025. It is
contended that the mandatory provisions
of Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act have
not been duly complied with. In
particular, it is submitted that no
individual communication was made to
the applicants apprising them of their
right to be searched before a Gazetted
Officer or a Magistrate; rather, a joint
consent was allegedly obtained from
both the applicants, which is contrary to
the mandate of law. It is further
submitted that the grounds of arrest
2026:UHC:1463
have not been communicated to the
applicants in writing till date. In support
of his submissions, learned counsel for
the applicants has placed reliance upon
the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in State of Rajasthan Vs.
Parmanand & Another, reported in
(2014) 5 SCC 345, wherein it has been
held that a joint communication under
Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act would not
amount to proper compliance of the
statutory requirement. Reliance has also
been placed upon the decision of the
Hon’ble Apex Court in Mihir Rajesh Shah
Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in
(2026) 1 SCC 500, reiterating the
importance of strict adherence to the
safeguards provided under the N.D.P.S.
Act. 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.
5. Per contra, learned State Counsel
has vehemently opposed the prayer for
bail and submits that the applicants have
previous criminal history, including two
cases under the N.D.P.S. Act (including
the present case).
6. Having considered the rival
2026:UHC:1463
submissions advanced by the learned
counsel for the parties and upon perusal
of the material brought on record, this
Court finds that the N.D.P.S. Act is a
stringent statute requiring strict
adherence to the procedural safeguards
contemplated therein. From the material
placed before the Court, it prima facie
appears that the requirement of Section
50 of the Act has not been duly complied
with, inasmuch as, a joint
communication regarding the option of
being searched before a Gazetted Officer
was allegedly given to both the
applicants and their joint consent was
obtained, which does not appear to
satisfy the mandatory requirement of
individual intimation. Furthermore, it has
been contended that the grounds of
arrest have not been communicated to
the applicants in writing.
7. In view of the aforesaid
circumstances, particularly the apparent
procedural lapses relating to compliance
of mandatory provisions of the N.D.P.S.
Act, the period of incarceration
undergone by the applicants, and
without expressing any opinion on the
merits of the case, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the applicants
have succeeded in making out a case for
grant of bail at this stage.
8. Accordingly, the bail application is
allowed.
9. Let the applicants, namely, Chaman
Prakash alias Lakhvinder and Mahaveer
be released on bail, on executing
personal bond by each one of them and
furnishing two reliable sureties by each
one of them, each of like amount, to the
satisfaction of Court concerned, subject
2026:UHC:1463
to the following conditions:
(i) The applicants shall attend the trial
Court regularly, and, they will not seek
any unnecessary adjournment.
(ii) The applicants shall not directly or
indirectly make any inducement, threat or
promise to any person acquainted with the
facts of this case.
(iii) The applicants shall not leave India
without any prior permission of the trial
Court.
It is clarified that if the applicants
misuse or violate any of the conditions,
imposed upon them, the complainant/
informant will be free to move the court
for cancellation of bail.
(Alok Mahra, J.)
09.03.2026
Arpan
ARPAN
Digitally signed by ARPAN JAISWAL
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH
COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=eabb68a3895e41937c266c23964c0485365445e
3a20dddb7393398f9fe45ba3e, postalCode=263001,
JAISWAL
st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=060FC17022BEAE3DE215D68D9D454C51
09CB987446351E4DF04AADAA2C2CEA66, cn=ARPAN
JAISWAL
Date: 2026.03.09 17:26:51 +05’30’